Alternative Plan

Noted local architect Lis Knibbe, working with the mayor and Midtown leadership, has developed an alternative plan for the rezoning of Midtown and Cross Street. The new plan called the Midtown R1a Plan, addresses the concern that many in the neighborhood had with the old plan in that it did not go far enough in downzoning and the new plan has added protection for existing uses and allows a owner-occupied home to have an apartment which Midtown said was critical to having more owner-occupied properties.

Each time this new plan has been presented, it has received wide spread support from neighbors and property owners and was enthusiastically supported at the last Midtown Neighborhood Association monthly meeting. This was the meeting on February 20, 2006, between Midtown residents and the City Council Rezoning sub-committee of Trudy Swanson (Ward 1), Bill Nickels (Ward 2), and Brian Filipiak (Ward 3) who all attended the meeting. Below is the current plan and an updated map is also provided.

We are making significant progress and with the support of council and the mayor, there is no reason we can't have this plan implemented within the next two to three months. There are no major hurdles, the key to success is building a level of trust and realize that by working together we are doing what is best for the Midtown neighborhood.

Midtown R1a Plan of February 20, 2006

300 Signature Milestone Reached!

The Midtown Neighborhood announced today that they have received the 300th protest signature of the Cross Street/Midtown rezoning. The proposed rezoning district is a the largest rezoning ever undertaken by the city with over 600 properties. Over 300 property owners have signed their name in opposition to the current plan. You can add you name to the list by clicking on Sign the petition link on the right, fill it out and fax it in. We will make sure to add your name to the growing list of Ypsilantian's opposed to the Cross Street/Midtown rezoning.

Letter to Mayor: Don't Give Up On Midtown

From: Rachel Cuschieri-Murray
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 12:16 AM
To: cheryl farmer
Subject: Progress Made

Cheryl,

We did make progress. For the sake of the neighborhood and the City, I hope you will not overlook that fact.

In your email you state, "It looks to me as if you are not certain that we actually agreed upon anything." You have misinterpreted my use of the words "seem" and "may." Although, by all appearances we "do" agree, I cannot be CERTAIN that we agree until my entire neighborhood has the opportunity to review the changes and express agreement, as stated in the same email.

I think it is fair to point out that I cannot speak for my entire neighborhood just as you cannot make decisions or speak for the entire Council.

You also state, "I understand that you need to represent your boss's viewpoint, but don't pretend to yourself that his viewpoint is in the best long term interests of your neighborhood." If I were representing my boss's viewpoint, I would have adamantly insisted that the entire plan be struck down from the beginning.

However, my neighbors and I acknowledge that there are some positive aspects of the plan, which would benefit our neighborhood. We would like to see those positive aspects saved and the problem points revised and corrected.

That was why seven of my neighbors and I met with you with less than 24 hours notice. That is also why we were all present at each of the other meetings that were scheduled over the last year specifically for us to meet with you. However, you wouldn't know that because, despite numerous promises by you to attend those meetings, you never did. Nor did City staff or any other representatives who are "pushing" this plan.

I will appeal to you one last time before the Tuesday meeting. Please do not abandon the progress we have made. Pursue the changes that have the support of the neighborhood. If you do not, we will ask Council to vote the plan down in its entirety.

Sincerely,

Rachel Cuschieri-Murray
114 N. Normal

Mayor Responds to Weekend Meetings

From: cheryl farmer
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 11:42 PM
To: Rachel Cuschieri-Murray
Subject: Re: My summary of today's discussion of downzoning issues

Rachel

I too thought we had made progress with our back to back meetings two weeks ago, but when I received your January 25th letter, I realized I was wrong.
I have highlighted the clues to this truth:

" We SEEM to agree on Items #1 and #2." "There MAY not be a problem with Item #3."

It looks to me as if you are not certain that we actually agreed upon anything.

With respect to Item #4, I do not agree that further discussion of this item needs to further delay consideration of the rest of the changes recommended to Council by the Planning Commission over a year ago.

I understand that you need to represent your boss's viewpoint, but don't pretend to yourself that his viewpoint is in the best long term interests of your neighborhood.

Cheryl

Urgent Information Regarding Your Property in the Midtown/Cross Street Area of Ypsilanti

Dear Neighbor:

This is a follow up to the notice of Public Hearing you should have received from the City last week.

Your property rights and/or those of your neighbors are being threatened.

The City of Ypsilanti is considering a plan to “downzone” the area where your property is, making more than half the neighborhood “non-conforming.”

As the new ordinance stands, non-conforming properties will not be allowed to rebuild “as-is” after destruction caused by fire, storms or other acts outside the control of the owner.

This is unacceptable! Property owners should have the right to rebuild their homes “as-is” without question and without having to beg for permission from the City.

Please come to the Public Hearing which is part of the City Council meeting on FEBRUARY 7th, 2006 at 7:30pm at City Hall to voice your opinion on the matter. Our Council needs to hear from you. Please also consider writing a letter or sending an email to your council representative or calling him/her personally.

This will be your last opportunity to defend your property rights, as City Council will be voting on whether or not to make this new ordinance law on FEBRUARY 7th, 2006 at 7:30pm at City Hall! Please come to this meeting!

For more information regarding this downzoning ordinance, you are also welcome to contact me at 734-786-1584 or 734-674-8909 or email me at Rachel@ypsi.com.

Sincerely,

Rachel Cuschieri-Murray
114 N. Normal St.
Cell: (734) 674-8909

When : Tuesday, February 7th, 2006
Where: Council Chambers, City Hall
1 South Huron
Ypsilanti, MI 48197

We need more density, not less

Dear Cheryl:

I am sending this in response to the meeting that will occur this Monday (Oct. 10, 2005) regarding downzoning. I have reviewed a letter written by Mr. Barnes and Mr. Gerber and am in agreement. [Mayor Farmer later cancelled her appearance at the Midtown Neighborhood Association citing a work-related conflict.]

Personally speaking, I find that the City has been hypocritical in regards to downzoning, given the fact that 302 N.Hamilton was recently issued a special use permit for a frat/sorority zoning. This flies in the face of decreasing density. That is only on example.

This city and it's make-up is as important to myself, although I do not have a personal residence in Ypsilanti, I have been here, it doesn't take away the fact that as a property owner I do care what happens here in Ypsilanti.

This City, although small, needs more density in the way of more people living here. Just take a look at Ann Arbor. The City needs young people moving here, living here and making this viable.

Many of us would be hurt by this downzoning, as Mr. Barnes and Mr. Gerber pointed out. They are trying to compromise and I stand behind their opinion.

Thank You,

Taryn Scherer
Midtown Property Owner

The following is Mayor Farmer's Response:

"I am not familiar with the Barnes/Gerber letter to which you refer. Perhaps you could share it with me?"

[Ed. Mayor Farmer was sent a copy of the letter in May 2005 and she was sent a second copy in October 2005.]

Mayor Meets with Neighbors, The Barnes/Gerber Letter

Dear Mayor Farmer:

We have been in the apartment business in the City of Ypsilanti for many years under the names Flo-Mar Apartments and Barnes & Barnes Apartments. At both Barnes and Flo-Mar, we take great pride in our buildings and our ability to provide safe and attractive housing not only for students, but for others as well.

For many years we have both been lobbying any City official we could find to crack down on landlords who rent without a Certificate of Occupancy and let their properties become bedraggled. These properties attract undesirable tenants, which are a major source of crime and contribute to Ypsilanti’s bad reputation.

Barnes, Flo-Mar, and the City are damaged when our tenants’ apartments and vehicles are broken into. We have always been convinced that cracking down on landlords who rent to criminals will rid the City of blight and crime.

Recently, a plan was submitted to downzone the area in which Flo-Mar and Barnes are located in response to these issues. The purpose of this downzoning plan, as we have been told by City officials, is to:

1. Improve dilapidated rental properties, prevent crime, and eventually get rid of certain landlords

2. Reduce the number of cars parking on City streets

3. Reduce density

We are opposed to this downzoning plan and think it’s a bad idea for three reasons:

1. Dilapidated rental properties and crime - Only aggressive enforcement of applicable building codes and ordinances and coordination between city departments can solve these issues.

2. Parking - Issuing residential parking permits and eliminating on-street EMU commuter parking will address and eliminate this problem at its source.

3. Reducing density - Ypsilanti has been losing population for decades. To make Ypsilanti a “Cool City”, it needs more people, and particularly more young people, to live here. “Cool City” as applied to Ypsilanti is presently a misnomer. Ypsilanti needs people. The issue that we should be addressing is the quality of housing, not density.

We said that we are opposed to downzoning. However, we are willing to withdraw our opposition as a result of a meeting with Lis Knibbe, Mayor Farmer, and ourselves.

At that meeting, in Lis Knibbe’s office, it was agreed by those present that we would not oppose this downzoning plan if, and only if, the following two conditions are met:

1) If a structure in the area proposed to be downzoned sustains substantial damage, it can be rebuilt without qualification except that the number of bedrooms cannot be increased. It was also agreed that the habitable area can be enlarged within the original footprint of the damaged structure.

2) Property owners will not be required to get a Special Use Permit or anything other than a standard building permit in order to rebuild.

On the basis of that meeting and these two conditions, we are willing to withdraw our opposition and feel that this will be an acceptable compromise. However, if either or both of these two conditions is/are not incorporated into any resolution of this matter, we remain opposed to the proposed downzoning plan.

Sincerely,

Marvin H. Gerber

Robert C. Barnes

More creative planning and zoning techniques

TO: The Honorable Cheryl Farmer, Mayor City of Ypsilanti

Mayor Farmer,

I believe that it may be helpful for you to hear the perspective of another community planner.

Like City Planner Nathan Voght, I am a graduate of EMU's urban planning program, which is one of only a dozen nationally-accredited programs in the U.S. Like Nathan, I have received my certification from the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP), which requires extensive education and professional experience, successful completion of a rigorous examination, and continuing compliance with the AICP Code of Ethics.

Unlike Nathan, I'm a resident and a homeowner in the affected neighborhood.

However, I would primarily like to give you my thoughts about the "Cross St. Area" rezoning plan process from another community planning perspective:

NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
From the comments I've read in the newspaper and heard at various public meetings, it doesn't appear that anyone is attempting to "demonize" Nathan.

However, as a community planner, I am concerned any time a growing number of individuals complain that a city planner is slanting information or selectively providing data to support a particular, predetermined point of view. I would be equally or more concerned if I was an elected official hearing such comments, since availability of complete and un-biased information is essential to decision making.

Among the most important elements of the AICP Code of Ethics are those that require certified community planners to be honest and above reproach, and to always consider the public interest first, even above the interest of your client (whether that client is a local government, private developer, or otherwise). Slanting or selective use of information to bolster a particular point of view at the expense of the public interest is inappropriate behavior for an AICP-certified community planner.

An example.... During one of the Planning Commission meetings on the "Cross St. Area" rezoning and related text amendments, several mortgage, insurance, and real estate marketing and investment experts spoke in opposition to the proposed rezonings, noting the deficiencies in the proposal and pointing out specific adverse consequences for neighborhood residents, property owners, and the City.

Upon further questioning by the Planning Commission, Nathan proceeded to dismiss these concerns as irrelevant, substituting his opinion for those of these experts. When I suggested a potential zoning solution to the question of how to regulate the increased number of nonconformities without adversely impacting availability of residential mortgages (a method used by many communities), my suggestion was dismissed out of hand.

Mr. Voght has sought support from the Normal Park Neighborhood Association (several visits, according to the association's newletters), which is not included in the rezoning plan to any significant degree. On the other hand, Nathan has made only a token effort at best to work with the Midtown Neighborhood Association, which is a core part of the rezoning plan. Whether intended or not, this pattern is likely to result in biased results.

LACK OF IMPROVEMENT
As a certified community planner, we must always strive to provide accurate information and objective recommendations based upon a thorough examination of the issues. We must always seek to maximize public participation, and to build consensus where possible. I have worked on a number of projects where the initial draft of a plan or ordinance was substantially changed and improved through meaningful public participation (after all, it is those with a real stake in the neighborhood, community or issue in question that are most likely to be aware of the problems and to have identified possible solutions).

This rezoning plan has not been altered in any significant way since it was first proposed, despite consistent and substantial public comments and many constructive recommendations for improvement.

This lack of improvement may reflect the lack of meaningful public participation (public hearings and audience participation at Council meetings are a poor substitute for actually engaging in a real discussion with the neighborhood), and the lack of objectivity on the part of the primary staff coordinator for the project.

A BETTER WAY
Finally, as a community planner, I am aware of numerous potential strategies for "achieving Council goals of improving quality of life and increasing home-ownership." Traditional zoning is among the least effective of these strategies. Working with organized neighborhood stakeholders at the "grass roots" level to develop a comprehensive neighborhood plan is likely to be much more effective, especially in the near term. Traditional neighborhood development (TND) regulations, form-based zoning, and existing use zoning are among the possible regulatory techniques that could be applied to the Midtown neighborhood and surrounding areas.

There are more creative and more effective planning and zoning "tools" available to the City to help the Midtown neighborhood and surrounding areas continue to improve. From my experience in attending meetings on the rezoning plan, I have found no evidence showing that any other alternatives besides "downzoning" were ever even considered by the City planning staff.

If you would like to explore these other "tools", I would recommend that the current rezoning scheme be rejected by City Council in favor of City Council direction to the planning staff and Planning Commission to work with the Midtown Neighborhood Association and other neighborhood stakeholders to develop a real plan for the future of these neighborhoods. Harvey Krage from Midtown has already stated repeatedly that his organization is ready to lead the development and implementation of such a plan.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Rodney C. Nanney, AICP
40 S. Summit St.
(734) 483-2271


> -----Original Message-----
> From: cheryl farmer [mailto:mayorsis@provide.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 1:27 AM
> Subject: Re: Dec 2 meeting
>
> Steve and Kathleen,
> Please stop demonizing Nathan. Nathan has been working on re-zoning
> issues for over a year as one strategy for achieving Council goals of
> improving quality of life and increasing home-ownership. This is a
> valid strategy, used all over the country. Nathan didn't invent it.
>