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.
Yeah, there is no way to do this independent of the state. That leadership has to come from the administration to empower you guys to force the issue. You may want to look into how former councilwoman Jessica Yorko spearheaded dealing with the state to get the bike lane on Saginaw, which required directly working with MDOT. Someone might even want to broach changing jurisdiction of those streets to the city. MDOT over recent decades have unloaded responsibility for quite a few urban M-roads to their various cities.
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)
Yeah, that's what citykid is generally talking about, a kind of TOD overlay on these corridors where there currently is single-family-only districts. Then the debate becomes how much to upzone them. Personally, with everything moving online, there is much less need for comparison shopping-type retail that the various commercial zones would allow, which is why I'm fine with development in the potential TOD corridors to mostly be R-6B up to R-MX. There may be a few nodes where we might want to add commercial zonings, but the need code mostly covered them.
BTW, kind of tangentially related, but there is a recent case from the planning office where I saw them advocating to revert a parcel of one of these nodes back to residential from a mixed-usage. It's around Cavanaugh and Aurelius. There's a home in between two commercial businesses there. The whole point of rezoning it mixed usage was to eventually get rid of single-family residents there, but the planning office is advocating for them to be allowed to revert it. We shouldn't be doing that; it defeats the purpose of the change to the code. The reason it was changed was to allow a contiguous commercial node, there, to eventually get rid of the two houses in between the two businesses. If we're talking about upzoning along the corridors, we can't also be letting stuff this happen and it coming from the planning office.
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.
I think for Urbandale, short of stuff on Kalamazoo, it actually really does make sense to just return it to nature. It's just too low-lying and then the freeway turns it into a bowl. That is, at least the township portion; the city did the right thing in trying to get everyone out of there, just my opinion. I've looked up the history of the area; it's been bad forever and it's pretty much related to the topography.
Yeah, I understand the part on the Aurelius about non-compliance, but that's how the code has always worked; it's how you slowly phase out a use you don't want to see. Like you said, perhaps the TOD change might be a sort of short-term fix.
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
Well, because voters didn't know what they were doing, Lansing voters narrowly and accidentally approved a general revision of the city charter proposal, tonight, which will open up an expensive process. Any structural changes anyone wants to see? lol
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.
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)
BTW, kind of tangentially related, but there is a recent case from the planning office where I saw them advocating to revert a parcel of one of these nodes back to residential from a mixed-usage. It's around Cavanaugh and Aurelius. There's a home in between two commercial businesses there. The whole point of rezoning it mixed usage was to eventually get rid of single-family residents there, but the planning office is advocating for them to be allowed to revert it. We shouldn't be doing that; it defeats the purpose of the change to the code. The reason it was changed was to allow a contiguous commercial node, there, to eventually get rid of the two houses in between the two businesses. If we're talking about upzoning along the corridors, we can't also be letting stuff this happen and it coming from the planning office.
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.
Yeah, I understand the part on the Aurelius about non-compliance, but that's how the code has always worked; it's how you slowly phase out a use you don't want to see. Like you said, perhaps the TOD change might be a sort of short-term fix.
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