I've been reading a lot from https://twitter.com/holz_bau and Larch Lab - he gets into US transit oriented development - how we zone all density housing on loud, dangerous, and unhealthy corridors. Lansing bought into this in the FBC and while we haven't seen any housing development yet, it does feel like we are stuck with that concept. One change the Planning and Zoning Office wanted to mull over was adding the R-6b zone to properties within _ amount of feet from all transit stops. Bearing in mind we'll likely never get local control of corridor street design back from the State, that could make these streets safer, I guess I just wondered what other people's take are for TOD. I think MX-1 and MX-2 are the best bets for livable density, but they are few and will have to completely overcome mid-century, auto-centric design.
Sorry I wasn't clear. FBC added mixed-use and 100% residential by-right in the commercial districts on the corridors (Saginaw, Oakland, MLK, Cedar, Pennsylvania) with the intent they should transition to the TOD concept. I did say we haven't seen it yet, but Stadium North is introducing a lot of new residents to loud and unsafe thoroughfares. I agree with you, residential upzoning is a net good, but I guess my question is how might the city amend the zoning code to protect people from harmful effects of that noise and pollution?
I believe most everyone here knows, but those streets, besides Penn, are state trunk lines so the city cannot unilaterally remove lanes or reduce speeds, which would help mitigate some of those impacts.
My first thought when I go look at the zoning map is the lack of mixed use or even multi family zoning for most cases where there's existing single family residential on major or minor arterials. If we want to change the character of the city we're not going to do that by leaving all single family neighborhoods alone forever after, much less where we have single family on thoroughfares.
Maybe rezone streets like Holmes Rd, Cavanaugh, Miller, Aurelius, Waverly, Mt Hope, Malcolm X, Pleasant Grove, Baker and Turner to a mix of R-MX and MX-C in their entirety (I lean towards MX-C in most cases because commercial is always appropriate on main streets, if a developer thinks it's viable in a particular spot: go for it). Same for the section of single family homes on s MLK from the river to the RR tracks including a couple lots deep on the side streets to the west side of the road along with continuing the rezoning on Pennsylvania north of Poxson Park.
There's isolated cases where changes could be made on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis, some struggling areas may an easier sell to move in a different direction. For example: Urbandale, it's well positioned within the area but is sort of isolated and the housing stock east of Holmes is bad, it's a perfect candidate for a change. I'd consider rezoning everything east of Holmes R-6b or R-MX. Then switch Main to MX-C along with perhaps some sections of Perkins and/or Walsh. In a perfect world those couple blocks of Clemens would go away in favor of raising the ground to create buildable frontage on Aurelius which would probably be MX-C.
One example where I really like what was done with the zoning that I noticed: The R-MX zoning on Davidson and Stabler near Holmes, I grew up in that neighborhood, that's the perfect kind of spot to try to encourage a denser node, maybe with a little commercial, within a neighborhood (MX-C wouldn't be a horrible idea along Holmes there).
*(Anywhere I said MX-C, MX-3 might be better, not sure on all the nuances)
I don't think it's good for the city to pick and choose the specific blocks/parcels where all the commercial goes, let the market decide, what's true today won't necessarily be so 5 or 10 or 20 years from now. You're not going to get new organically grown neighborhood nodes with residential-only zoning. I strongly, strongly feel that these corridors should be zoned to allow commercial anywhere along them but without requiring it. Micromanaging zoning is how you make the whole city feel like a giant lifestyle center, it's counterproductive to having an interesting and varied cityscape. I thought one of the principals of form-based zoning is that it cares about aesthetics and site layout more than use?
I totally agree on not allowing the reversion of zoning in cases like that, not a good idea at all.
There is no political will or pressure to broach corridor street design. Heck they didn't even put in the promised bike lanes for the street conversions downtown. But local design control of trunk lines will be a strategy mentioned again in the comprehensive plan update. Coincidentally Planning & Zoning was just invited to a MDOT meeting discussing active (pedestrian/bike) mobility. And there was a contingent of blind/visually impaired persons which was amazing to hear from. There is a culture shift in MDOT, but it was evident the number one consideration is still how do they move motor vehicles from point a to point b the quickest.
I hear you hood but I think that much zoning deregulation will be a tough sell. Upzoning will probably be a multi-step process beginning with universal duplex/ADU and R-6b around transit stops. There should be a provision to expand allowable commercial around those neighborhood nodes. I will look at those areas you mentioned. We also need to re-legalize all the existing corner stores and neighborhood commercial created pre-1950 whose district changed. I don't want to say it is a balancing act because I mostly agree it should be organic/market-driven, but real nuisances grow up around them. I guess that is what code enforcement is for.
We've heard first hand Urbandale residents do not want any density. Of course that isn't universal but there is a perception that Lansing will follow the township and just convert it to industrial or 4-over-1s to get rid all of the existing residents. I don't know where that comes from but its there. The City really hobbled itself by using so many FEMA grants for demolition. (Maybe I just answered my own question). Tens of lots are scattered, unable to ever be redeveloped unless the floodplain drastically reduces. I think it is better positioned for this kind of development.
Just wanted to touch on 4111 Aurelius real quick - the situation was that the owner was unable to sell because banks won't finance a legal non-conformity since the structure cannot be rebuilt. They had a ton of offers withdrawn because of it. I agree it is a bad look but its difficult to tell someone they are just stuck with the property. FBC does allow existing single-family in commercial zones if it is a non-local street so I think the solution is to expand that allowance, then change it back to MX-1 in the future once that is fixed. That solution just wasn't available at this time. The same situation happens in the industrial zones around Hazel and Sunset, but Planning wouldn't recommend rezoning because of the floodplain and the entrenched uses around them. The result is they are all owned by landlords and left to rot for low-income people.
I feel like I said a bunch of nothing, but I do appreciate the discussion and ideas to examine. I am excited for everyone's comments when the proposed zoning changes go public.
Why not just add a provision to the overall zoning code that allows rebuilds in the case of an accident/insurance claim? (worded in legalese, of course) That would seem to be a blanket solution to the issue.
Regarding Urbandale: I've been using the wrong name, I meant Potter-Walsh. I agree that Urbandale should go to townhouses or open land. So this whole bit was actually regarding Potter-Walsh:
it's well positioned within the area but is sort of isolated and the housing stock east of Holmes is bad, it's a perfect candidate for a change. I'd consider rezoning everything east of Holmes R-6b or R-MX. Then switch Main to MX-C along with perhaps some sections of Perkins and/or Walsh. In a perfect world those couple blocks of Clemens would go away in favor of raising the ground to create buildable frontage on Aurelius which would probably be MX-C.
As for zoning deregulation, I just think people have to be sold on it. Show them the kinds of neighborhoods that came from natural growth and they'll understand. Remind them that it will allow unique opportunities for entrepreneurs to buy a house, possibly be able to use it as an office or small storefront, maybe tear down then build something else when they can afford it all on the same site; at least I hope to see an avenue for people to do things like that. It's important not to let a few adjacent property owners who loudly protest dictate the futures of their neighbors and the city as a whole, there will always be people fighting these sorts things, it's important to not let them be the only voice in the room rallying people to their side. Are there really people out there fighting to keep single family homes on streets like Pennsylvania, Jolly, Holmes or the others?
For whatever it's worth, I made a "If I could wave a magic wand" version of my zoning changes for single family on corridors. Red would be residential mixed use (maybe 3 floors max, urban site plan required, residential element required / commercial element optional, no commercial-only by right, perhaps limit to some negotiated "neighborhood friendly" commercial uses). Yellow would be medium density residential (something like R-MX, possibly slightly more restrictive). I threw it together quick so don't 100% hold me to these thoughts: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1gAF5uv8OzPXTVxc6IlJb9MVeQlsX8p0&usp=sharing
A very vocal group has been pushing a change to a manager-council government and for 8-9 wards. I wonder if that was the part that tipped this. Hard to imagine this not becoming a mess.
I'd be lying if I said I knew enough to have a strong opinion. I'm more interested in not rocking the boat too much because of the positive momentum that it only just beginning to swell in the area, I'm worried about the distractions that a process like this is likely to cause. Shame on me for not voting.
On the surface I don't like the idea of more wards and certainly not more councilmembers. It just opens us up to to potentially lesser qualified and more politically extreme candidates which does the city no favors. I've heard various arguments for the different mayor/manager-council setups but have no opinion on those yet.
Comments
I believe most everyone here knows, but those streets, besides Penn, are state trunk lines so the city cannot unilaterally remove lanes or reduce speeds, which would help mitigate some of those impacts.
Maybe rezone streets like Holmes Rd, Cavanaugh, Miller, Aurelius, Waverly, Mt Hope, Malcolm X, Pleasant Grove, Baker and Turner to a mix of R-MX and MX-C in their entirety (I lean towards MX-C in most cases because commercial is always appropriate on main streets, if a developer thinks it's viable in a particular spot: go for it). Same for the section of single family homes on s MLK from the river to the RR tracks including a couple lots deep on the side streets to the west side of the road along with continuing the rezoning on Pennsylvania north of Poxson Park.
There's isolated cases where changes could be made on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis, some struggling areas may an easier sell to move in a different direction. For example: Urbandale, it's well positioned within the area but is sort of isolated and the housing stock east of Holmes is bad, it's a perfect candidate for a change. I'd consider rezoning everything east of Holmes R-6b or R-MX. Then switch Main to MX-C along with perhaps some sections of Perkins and/or Walsh. In a perfect world those couple blocks of Clemens would go away in favor of raising the ground to create buildable frontage on Aurelius which would probably be MX-C.
One example where I really like what was done with the zoning that I noticed: The R-MX zoning on Davidson and Stabler near Holmes, I grew up in that neighborhood, that's the perfect kind of spot to try to encourage a denser node, maybe with a little commercial, within a neighborhood (MX-C wouldn't be a horrible idea along Holmes there).
*(Anywhere I said MX-C, MX-3 might be better, not sure on all the nuances)
I totally agree on not allowing the reversion of zoning in cases like that, not a good idea at all.
I hear you hood but I think that much zoning deregulation will be a tough sell. Upzoning will probably be a multi-step process beginning with universal duplex/ADU and R-6b around transit stops. There should be a provision to expand allowable commercial around those neighborhood nodes. I will look at those areas you mentioned. We also need to re-legalize all the existing corner stores and neighborhood commercial created pre-1950 whose district changed. I don't want to say it is a balancing act because I mostly agree it should be organic/market-driven, but real nuisances grow up around them. I guess that is what code enforcement is for.
We've heard first hand Urbandale residents do not want any density. Of course that isn't universal but there is a perception that Lansing will follow the township and just convert it to industrial or 4-over-1s to get rid all of the existing residents. I don't know where that comes from but its there. The City really hobbled itself by using so many FEMA grants for demolition. (Maybe I just answered my own question). Tens of lots are scattered, unable to ever be redeveloped unless the floodplain drastically reduces. I think it is better positioned for this kind of development.
Just wanted to touch on 4111 Aurelius real quick - the situation was that the owner was unable to sell because banks won't finance a legal non-conformity since the structure cannot be rebuilt. They had a ton of offers withdrawn because of it. I agree it is a bad look but its difficult to tell someone they are just stuck with the property. FBC does allow existing single-family in commercial zones if it is a non-local street so I think the solution is to expand that allowance, then change it back to MX-1 in the future once that is fixed. That solution just wasn't available at this time. The same situation happens in the industrial zones around Hazel and Sunset, but Planning wouldn't recommend rezoning because of the floodplain and the entrenched uses around them. The result is they are all owned by landlords and left to rot for low-income people.
I feel like I said a bunch of nothing, but I do appreciate the discussion and ideas to examine. I am excited for everyone's comments when the proposed zoning changes go public.
Regarding Urbandale: I've been using the wrong name, I meant Potter-Walsh. I agree that Urbandale should go to townhouses or open land. So this whole bit was actually regarding Potter-Walsh:
As for zoning deregulation, I just think people have to be sold on it. Show them the kinds of neighborhoods that came from natural growth and they'll understand. Remind them that it will allow unique opportunities for entrepreneurs to buy a house, possibly be able to use it as an office or small storefront, maybe tear down then build something else when they can afford it all on the same site; at least I hope to see an avenue for people to do things like that. It's important not to let a few adjacent property owners who loudly protest dictate the futures of their neighbors and the city as a whole, there will always be people fighting these sorts things, it's important to not let them be the only voice in the room rallying people to their side. Are there really people out there fighting to keep single family homes on streets like Pennsylvania, Jolly, Holmes or the others?
For whatever it's worth, I made a "If I could wave a magic wand" version of my zoning changes for single family on corridors. Red would be residential mixed use (maybe 3 floors max, urban site plan required, residential element required / commercial element optional, no commercial-only by right, perhaps limit to some negotiated "neighborhood friendly" commercial uses). Yellow would be medium density residential (something like R-MX, possibly slightly more restrictive). I threw it together quick so don't 100% hold me to these thoughts:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1gAF5uv8OzPXTVxc6IlJb9MVeQlsX8p0&usp=sharing
On the surface I don't like the idea of more wards and certainly not more councilmembers. It just opens us up to to potentially lesser qualified and more politically extreme candidates which does the city no favors. I've heard various arguments for the different mayor/manager-council setups but have no opinion on those yet.
https://old.reddit.com/r/lansing/comments/17qqrnp/a_revision_to_lansings_city_charter_passed/