[LMich]

Thanks. None of that is particularly unusual. In an old urban area where you've got a central city surrounded by other incorporated cities, each is very likely to have it own zoning code. In fact, I'd imagine in most states, an incorporated city is likely required to have its own zoning code, and those areas that aren't incorporated fall under a county zoning code. It's also not particularly unsual for most of these cities' development to have occured prior to the introduction of zoning codes, in which lots that were empty or became empty and were then provided a zoning designation outside the requirements of that lot are grandfathered in as "lots of record." These are always buildable lots, but it's made harder to develop them as you usually have to take the extra step of going to the city to get a variance or a rezoning.

Anyway, in my city of Lansing, for detatched single family homes you've got the zones A, A-1 and B. The only difference between these three is the lot area requires:

Lot area: 6,000 square feet (A), 5,000 sq ft (A-1) and 4,000 sq ft (B)

Yards: Front: 20 ft min - 50 ft max / Side: 6 ft or 10% the lot width but not less than distance to allow a vehicle / Back: 30 ft min

Height: 33 ft max

Lot coverage: 40% for all structures, 55% total area

The big one I'd change is the front yard minimum, and then also the area requirements. Basically, I think so long as you build the structure to the structure requirements in the code, you shouldn't have to worry about the size of the lot. For the front yard - and this is addressed in the new proposed Form-Base Code - I'd add a "build-to" line where you'd be required to build to the existing blockface. There are very few lots in the city - and really no lots in the older part of the city - where buildings are setback 20 feet from their property lines, and that is an excessive amount in any case. As it stands, now, to be able to build infill on single-family lots in the inner-city and have the setbacks match the existing blockface, you have to request a variance, which prolongs the process.

The other big thing would be the allowance of accessory dwelling units, but even in the new proposed zoning code for my city they are not permitted. I've found even some otherwise low-density suburbs around Metro Detroit (Garden City, for example) allow accessry dwelling units.

Other little quirks I found in my city's zoning code? Attached single family homes are regulated as multi-family buildings. Oh, and a group of residents angry with single-family homes being split into duplexes in their neighborhood successfully lobbied the city some years back - this didn't even make the news - to help them keep out these renters. The sneaky amendment to the zoning code put into place? The duplex zoning district (C) now requires 60 feet of road frontage. Very few of these homes which had previously been split into two units had lots that had 60 feet or road frontage. This essentially stopped cold the conversion of old homes in the inner-city to duplex units.

Huge caveat on single-family dominated neighborhoods in the city either attached or detatched, the "Planned Residential Development" overall essentially allows developers to get around this when developing on the few large parcels left in the city. This allows developing a mix of all kinds of housing (single-family attached and detached and multi-family buildings) on land that might otherwise be zoned for only single-family homes. The only case is that all dimenstional and density requirements for the underlying district still apply. Even then, you can get around density requirements as bonuses are awarded for setting aside land on the parcel for open-space, saving existing stands of trees on the parcel, buildings that promote energy conservation, or if the land is deemed "blighted."

So, I'd say the zoning code here is probably not all that strict given how easy it is to get around it and given how basic and simple the requirements are. Also, most of all our non-residential/commercial and industrial-dominated districts are actually mixed-use, though usually only by way of a special land use permit. At the same time, there remain small but significant issues that discourage truly urban development in much of the city, the biggie being parking minimum requirements, which are probably more strictly adhered to than anything else in the code.