Meeting of March 24, 2016
by Sally Silver

This meeting began with some procedural changes. Instead of meeting as planned on April 14th and 28th, our next meeting would be on April 21st and then, probably, May 12th.

This meeting reviewed once more the memo listing license transfers/termination options, potential zoning options, and potential building modifications. We had reviewed the first and last memos at the last meeting, but the modified versions of these were presented to us for further comment. Each time we review these, we refine what has been written or sometimes add or subtract items from our menu of items. We don’t vote on the items.

Potential Building Modifications: At the last meeting, I had asked that the additions proposed that were measured in terms of the total square footage of a rental house should instead be measured in terms of square footage above grade, but that had not been added to the revised list of options. I corrected that and presume that was noted by the staff. The entire section on possibly exchanging building modifications for parking changes had been eliminated, primarily because the staff had indicated that it was too difficult to monitor parking. One option in the section on “interior modifications” allowed for code compliant modifications (which require certain percentages of interior space to be used for living rooms and bedrooms etc.). Another option allowed current configuration modifications (keeping the same existing allocation of square footage by room type). In both cases, the options stated that “occupancy would not be allowed to increase unless reduction in occupancy is allowed and achieved elsewhere.” I noted that I would like to see additional options added that would the same as above but without the possibility of increases in occupancy. Note that landlords seeking to modify their rental houses have repeatedly stated that they are NOT seeking increases in occupancy, just the ability to add on to their houses.

The possibility of allowing building modifications through variances was eliminated because it is not a practice the city of East Lansing has supported. A landlord suggested that rental houses be allowed to make the same additions that owner-occupants were allowed (similar to the House legislative committee’s proposal), but that had not yet been added. There was no proposal to keep our current ordinance dealing with modifications to non-conforming properties, even though our law is similar to that of other Michigan cities and, like them, seeks to prevent an increase in non-conforming features of such a property. I support that objective.

We discussed the ‘potential zoning options’ memo at some length, as we had not discussed version 2 of this memo at the previous meeting. This is the memo that creates new‘Class C-4’ and ‘Class C-8’ land uses. Like Class A and Class B, these would apply to multi-family use. Classes A and B refer to apartments and group housing such as fraternities (and now includes rooming houses). The “C” classification would set up a ‘rooming house’ designation as separate.

It was explained that the Class C-4 (a single-family, duplex, or triplex residential dwelling occupied by more than 2 unrelated or a family but no more than 4 unrelated) and the Class C-8 (a single-family, duplex, or triplex residential dwelling occupied by more than 2 unrelated or a family but no more than 8) might be used just to label non-conforming rental houses according to the number of legal tenants permitted above the current standard of 2 unrelated or a family. This ‘labeling’ use would have no impact on current zoning other than nomenclature, but one might ask why this is necessary and if it is not a prelude to other actions.

However, as explained in other reports, one option listed was that a “Class C in any zone be subject to licensing whereby an existing and equivalent single-family conforming rental occupancy is correspondingly reduced.” In this case, someone might ‘buy’ a license from one house (say a license for 4) and then move that license to a Class C house elsewhere. If that second house had a legal tenancy of 4, 4 more tenants would be added if the house could accommodate them. The total number of tenants affected would be constant, but reduced in one house and increased in another. The house with 8 could be modified if need be within the law, including additions, because the Class C house with transferred license would be a ‘conforming’ license.

This creates a number of dilemmas: How does one determine where the Class C ‘zones’ that receive licenses are and wherre the donor zones that give up licenses are? One suggestion suggests that the recipient zones would be closer to campus, the giving zones further away. (The memo on rental license transfers states, for example: “Recipient properties would ideally be better situated to accommodate rentals, i.e., closer to campus and further from owner-occupied properties.” But patterns of rental vs. owner-occupied properties in the Bailey neighborhood are not so easily defined: West Brookfield (Lexington-Kenberry) is an owner-occupied area that is south of Albert; parts of Durand closer to campus have more owner-occupied houses than blocks immediately north; Grove north of Burcham has more rental houses than the 600 block south; the DTN apartments zoned RM32 are north of Burcham as are many duplexes lining Burcham’s north side; and many owner-occupants prefer to live close to campus, south of Burcham.

As a ‘representative’ of Bailey on this committee, I would have great trouble making choices of this type. As a result, I suggested that determinations of this kind be made in consultation with or by the neighborhoods concerned. I also suggested that movements of donor houses to recipient houses or neighborhoods, be kept within neighborhoods, so that one neighborhood does not dump its excess tenants into another neighborhood.

Another suggestion about how to determine such zones is that the owners of the properties in such potential zones be allowed to petition the city council to create overlay districts that would create such zones (similar to the process to create rental-restricted overlay districts). I have noted in an earlier memo that unlike the rental restricted overlay districts, which DECREASE an owner’s property rights, this type of overlay would INCREASE the owner’s property rights, as would occur with any ‘upzoning’. In areas primarily owned by landlords the owners would most likely agree to this. But why would the city want to create this ‘do your own upzoning’ process that might serve as a precedent for upzoning elsewhere? This seems to allow groups of property owners who stand to profit from a particular zoning choice to determine what a zone will be, rather than the planning commission or city council determining what is best for overall city development. I can’t support such a strategy.

Another conflict the class C categories create is that Ordinance 900, which limited the number of legal tenants in new rentals to 2 unrelated persons or a family, did so in part because a detailed comparison of rental houses to other forms of rentals (chiefly apartments) showed that single-family rentals created many more problems (nuisances, maintenance problems, parking problems, safety problems) than apartments. Our committee has not undertaken a study of similar depth, but what little has been done shows that ‘central Bailey’ between Bailey, Gunson, Burcham and Linden has almost no noise violations compared with immediately adjacent mixed areas. And there has been no study comparing rentals with up to 8 persons to rentals with 3 or 4, which constitute the majority.

Are blocks that are entirely rental more noisy and more subject to other problems? If so, creating a Class C-8 type land use and encouraging all-rental zones might create a serious problems for the city. Creating such zones is attractive because a house accommodating 8 people (and permitting rooms to be added on to the house if need be) would create rooms that would accommodate license transfers. The committee has not discussed the parking implications, or ground coverage requirements ( including amount of paving) for the class C properties.

Given the lack of data on the impact of ‘rooming houses,’ on their environs I would want to see small trials of the concept before adopting this as a general strategy.

Another question related to this is determining the goal of these transfer donor and recipient zones. Is it to eliminate rentals from some areas? Or might it be simply to increase the number of mixed blocks where the majority of houses on a block are non rentals (which I would prefer, living on such a block myself)?

Another related question is whether increasing the value of properties by allowing increased tenancy makes those properties so valuable that landlords will never sell them for other purposes. In putting together its preliminary new comprehensive plan, the Planning Commission did not consider such rooming houses (or enlarged single-family houses) in their plans – looking more at townhouses or more conventional development in areas where the commission envisioned increased density. For many years, few landlords have been willing to sell their properties so that new development might occur, in large part because rental properties supply good steady income. And that is still the case. In fact, though rental properties do change hands, they rarely do so on the open market.

The committee then began to look at maps of different neighborhoods that had red lines drawn around areas to show areas that the Planning Commission had suggested, through its new comprehensive plan proposal, might be ‘mixed use or multi-family areas’ up to 16 units/acre (or ‘R3). This should be quite controversial in and of itself. For example, the west side of my block (the 400 block of Bailey Street) would be slated for multi-family or multi use, even though all the houses on that side are single family houses (with 3 rentals). Similarly, the south side of Elizabeth would also fall in this category. Living as I do at 426 Bailey Street, I consider my location excellent, as do my neighbors, and would hotly contest this designation. Yet in looking at areas that might be considered for C-8 designation, it was to these boundaries that we looked for possible areas for the C-type properties. Keep in mind that the proposals from the planning commission have not yet been subjected to broader public scrutiny. I will certainly not be able to agree to the intrusion of multi-family zones into the 400 blocks and further north in parts of old Bailey and to the east of Bailey, to many more southern blocks. My bias is that the areas close to campus should be the most desirable not only for students, but for young faculty and anyone who values the convenience of urban living as well.