Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Michigan City planning staff previews ordinance to ease infill rules; residents and builders urge allowance for tiny homes
Summary
Planning staff presented a proposal to expand a Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance that would let builders average setbacks and allow smaller homes in older R1D neighborhoods; commissioners asked procedural and technical questions and the commission heard public comments both urging and warning about minimum‑size limits. No formal recommendation to City Council was made; the commission approved routine agenda items and set 2026 meeting dates.
Michigan City — Planning staff on Dec. 18 walked the Michigan City Planning Commission through a proposed Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance intended to make it easier to rebuild and infill in the city’s older, historic neighborhoods by allowing averaging of setbacks and enabling smaller homes to fit existing block patterns.
"The goal of this is really to make something to help put houses back on these lots that make sense and that fit into our neighborhoods and bring value to our neighborhoods," presenter Skyler said during a slide presentation describing how an averaging approach — used now in R1E waterfront areas — could be expanded into R1D neighborhoods.
Why it matters: Commissioners were told the existing code’s uniform 50‑by‑100 lot expectations and a 1,000‑square‑foot minimum often make older lots effectively unbuildable without time‑consuming variances. Skyler said averaging front setbacks and square footage across a block (or nearby blocks if there are few houses) could allow new homes that match the scale of adjacent houses and avoid repeated variance requests.
What the plan would do: Skyler described how an average of existing front setbacks on sample blocks could reduce a 20‑foot front setback to roughly 13–16 feet in places, and showed examples where averaged square footage could permit homes under 1,000 square feet. He framed the measure as optional for builders: "If you do not wanna use it, you don't have to. You just revert back to the traditional zoning that's there," he said.
Public comment split along affordability lines. Rodney McCormick, a longtime Eastside resident, said averaging could inadvertently raise the minimum house size on his block and make rebuilding unaffordable for local owners: "If I build a house that's 500 square feet and then it passed inspection, who are you to stop me from doing that?" he asked, arguing existing, smaller homes set a local precedent.
Builder and developer Ian Osborne said tiny and sub‑1,000 homes are cheaper to build and operate and urged the city to explicitly allow them. Osborne cited Indiana administrative code (675 IAC 14‑4.4‑242) as permitting sub‑400‑square‑foot dwellings if they meet state and local requirements and said the city already contains examples of homes under 1,000 square feet. "Sub 1,000 homes and tiny homes are easier to maintain. They're cheaper to heat and cool… they're cheaper and affordable," he said.
Scott Nellentur, speaking from Kenwood Place, called the proposal "good planning," saying it would enhance the property rights of owners of nonconforming lots and that variances would remain available for those who need them. Senior resident Dale Cooper told the commission he hopes to move into a tiny house in Michigan City and asked commissioners to permit sub‑1,000 options for seniors.
Procedure and next steps: Commissioners pressed staff on process and notice — one commissioner cited Michigan City code (Article 7, Section 2‑440) and asked whether the meeting notice complied. Staff and other commissioners clarified the Planning Commission makes recommendations and that City Council adopts ordinances: "We do not approve ordinances. We make recommendations to council," Skyler said. Skyler said he was presenting for discussion only and was not asking the commission to vote on the ordinance that night.
What was decided: The commission did not vote on the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance. It approved routine business: the agenda, prior meeting minutes, and tentative meeting dates for 2026. The commission set its next meeting for Jan. 27, 2026.
Background: The ordinance is already applied in parts of the city zoned R1E (waterfront/back dune areas, including Sheridan Beach) and was described by staff as a tested approach the city could extend to many of the city’s historic R1D blocks, where lot patterns are older and smaller than modern suburban standards.
Documents and authorities referenced during the meeting include a local reference to Michigan City code (Article 7, Section 2‑440) and state administrative guidance cited by a public commenter (675 IAC 14‑4.4‑242).
