33' is common in a lot of neighborhoods platted before automobiles were a thing. The width minimum is to accommodate a 5' minimum side setback (which if built to a new dwelling would require a fire-rated wall), a 10' second side setback/driveway, and a 24' wide dwelling. That is where 40' comes from. The zoning amendment proposes a 20' wide minimum dwelling instead to accommodate two 10' side setbacks so fire-rated walls aren't required.
To reflect the reality of <40' wide lots and in-fill new builds, the code states (1244.02 (a)(1) ) that the side setbacks are 10' for a driveway and 10% of the lot width, rounding down, to accommodate a 20' wide house. For 33' wide parcel that is 3'. This was written to remove the need for variances.
If the city had utilized residential alleys better when neighborhoods were platted I'd agree with 0' setbacks, but they aren't common outside of the Eastside. And rowhouses are not common anywhere except MFR campuses.
The zoning ordinance just sort of reflects what exists. All these neighborhoods are built out. If we had empty land like a Detroit/Flint/Saginaw I think it could be a useful strategy to introduce. There are already so many complaints because neighbors are too close to each other. You would not believe the amount of fence and driveway disputes that are called in.
I'd love to see a true row house neighborhood and it would be a cool project to site but a Planned Unit Development could be utilized to accomplish it.
@citykid The development status page would be fantastic to have. I hope you guys can make it happen.
I'd love to see the entire eastside south of Michigan become all rowhouses and low rise apartment buildings. Maybe in a few decades after Michigan Ave is fully built up and there's been some variances granted on the side streets for denser housing, the future residents there will be more amenable to change. Really, over the very long term, I think that will be the fate of most neighborhoods in the central city. There's no reason why after another couple centuries of development many US cities couldn't look a lot more like Amsterdam, all you have to do is get prohibitive zoning laws out of the way.
Is there that much demand on the Eastside of Lansing though? Seems like they have a lot of existing housing that could use improvements before expansion. I definitely don't see the appeal or draw of the area, but maybe it's just an outsiders view. I don't see a draw for the businesses that are there or the residential options that would encourage me to consider it. I'm not trying to be negative, just trying to understand why it needs this density. Lansing overall has housing thar could be improved on before expanding further, other than the downtown core which is lacking.
@Lymon89 If you assume that Lansing area of the future grows as fast as the Lansing area of the last 50 years then probably no reason at all. If the area is to grow then the Eastside is situated centrally in the metro with great access to freeways, in between downtown Lansing and East Lansing/MSU with easy access to Frandor, Eastwood and Michigan Ave shopping. Think long term. Just 2% average annual population growth over 50 years would see our 550k metro swell to 1.5 million. In that world do you not think the Eastside is a prime location for a sprawling tract of much denser housing? If not then where?
I'm not sure honestly. I mean I see your reasoning...long term maybe but it seems like there is a ways to go before that happens. I don't think density would work on the Westside, but I think its highway access is more significant. As a commuter, I've always found it an speaking option. The Eastside seems like a lot more work to get to a highway.
Not trying to shoot it down, just understand. I guess if we're talking where it would sprawl, I guess I can see it making sense and replacing the housing stock that's there. These dense urban areas you see with ADUs in larger cities tend to be more significant homes than what the Eastside offers. I guess the way I see it, is it would replace the Eastside essentially and that would change the feel. I mean, in 50 years, those structures will be way past their prime.
Currently, Michigan Ave shopping isn't much, Frandor isn't great and Eastwood is pretty depressing. There would have to be some significant change to make those a significant draw.
Thoughts? I'm sorry, I'm really not trying to be so negative but the more I think about it, I struggle. I think the big thing it has going for it is the geographical aspect being between EL and Lansing. It would be great if it could be something like the short north in Columbus, but we also lack the significant homes that make that area.
Eastwood and especially Frandor have a lot of the every day needs kind of stuff, not as new and pretty as some other areas but it's all there. I don't think people don't need a big draw next door, they need every day convenience. Michigan Ave's sorry state is likely coming to an end with the new streetscaping and the likelihood of more apartment buildings. If the metro were to grow by 500k-1m people in 50 years and the city can capture 5%-10% of that where do they go? All downtown? There's no notable empty land. Eastside is the logical beneficiary of downtown Lansing's and EL/MSU's future growth.
I guess I'm not even talking just the Eastside, or Lansing. The kind of densification that I'm talking about should be the natural state of things in growing cities. When a city is fully built out and landlocked by its neighbors it can only grow by becoming denser, it's also natural that over time centrally located land and neighborhoods will become the most valuable in the metro all other things being equal (crime, schools, etc...). Some of these neighborhoods are going to be prime targets for this densification before others based on a confluence of factors like housing quality, location and general neighborhood condition. Logic being: the Eastside is the best located neighborhood in Lansing relative to the metro, wealthier eastern suburbs, both area downtowns, MSU, state government and hospitals; It's a neighborhood that has a lot of small subpar housing that's difficult to argue needs saving and will be relatively cheaper to buy out than some other areas. I'm not talking large developments, at least not predominantly. I'm talking encouraging 4-6 unit buildings on single lots with perhaps the ability to combine two or three lots with proportionally more units. The new form based code isn't that far from doing this, it even allows 6 unit buildings in some areas with similar lot sizes if I'm not mistaken.
Here's a couple videos that touch on relevant laws/regulations that prevent the kind of neighborhoods you see in Europe that everyone seems to fawn over on their vacations yet regulate out of existence at home:
I always harp on the long term stuff because building a better city is very long term prospect, it's taken 30 years of concerted urban rejuvenation effort to see (maybe) the first housing boom downtown. Things like a major museum expansion or starting a new one can take decades of fits & starts, fundraising and grant chasing. We have to think about how we want our city to look many decades from now and plan for that. This sudden bout of regulatory changes with city are a big step in the right direction imo.
btw, I don't want to sound argumentative but I do enjoy a bit of debate. It helps me hone and self-correct some of my own thoughts & opinions.
Urban density with some human comfort is a very good for true urban "village" neighborhoods. In my crazy dreams I could see a "canal district" on the northwest side next to the river, a couple of u-shaped cannels with some dense housing and retail, and ta-da you could have a tourist district and a new neighborhood. The river naturally downhill flows to the north that could fill the cannels, and it would be possible to change the water each day like they do in Amsterdam. It would be cool to think outside of the money box once in a while. In Holland MI they built a windmill with the thought that people would want to visit the windmill in the future, and it was true it is one of the most popular attractions in the state.
They have been using www.hookerdejong.com
The city told them about the proposed rules for articulation and prohibiting different styles/materials from crossing multiple floors/horizontal segments and the blue and brown stripes on the wilx news story made me smack my forehead in frustration.
I do hope that there's at least some modest changes to the design. I also really wish they would've included at least a small retail space in the building to the south.
I think at most there is a small office space for the apartment/LHC in the riverview 220 building. I know they explored commercial early in the process and it got scrapped pretty fast because they could not identify any demand and whatever happened with the CATA discussions happened.
Comments
To reflect the reality of <40' wide lots and in-fill new builds, the code states (1244.02 (a)(1) ) that the side setbacks are 10' for a driveway and 10% of the lot width, rounding down, to accommodate a 20' wide house. For 33' wide parcel that is 3'. This was written to remove the need for variances.
If the city had utilized residential alleys better when neighborhoods were platted I'd agree with 0' setbacks, but they aren't common outside of the Eastside. And rowhouses are not common anywhere except MFR campuses.
The zoning ordinance just sort of reflects what exists. All these neighborhoods are built out. If we had empty land like a Detroit/Flint/Saginaw I think it could be a useful strategy to introduce. There are already so many complaints because neighbors are too close to each other. You would not believe the amount of fence and driveway disputes that are called in.
I'd love to see a true row house neighborhood and it would be a cool project to site but a Planned Unit Development could be utilized to accomplish it.
I'd love to see the entire eastside south of Michigan become all rowhouses and low rise apartment buildings. Maybe in a few decades after Michigan Ave is fully built up and there's been some variances granted on the side streets for denser housing, the future residents there will be more amenable to change. Really, over the very long term, I think that will be the fate of most neighborhoods in the central city. There's no reason why after another couple centuries of development many US cities couldn't look a lot more like Amsterdam, all you have to do is get prohibitive zoning laws out of the way.
Not trying to shoot it down, just understand. I guess if we're talking where it would sprawl, I guess I can see it making sense and replacing the housing stock that's there. These dense urban areas you see with ADUs in larger cities tend to be more significant homes than what the Eastside offers. I guess the way I see it, is it would replace the Eastside essentially and that would change the feel. I mean, in 50 years, those structures will be way past their prime.
Currently, Michigan Ave shopping isn't much, Frandor isn't great and Eastwood is pretty depressing. There would have to be some significant change to make those a significant draw.
Thoughts? I'm sorry, I'm really not trying to be so negative but the more I think about it, I struggle. I think the big thing it has going for it is the geographical aspect being between EL and Lansing. It would be great if it could be something like the short north in Columbus, but we also lack the significant homes that make that area.
I guess I'm not even talking just the Eastside, or Lansing. The kind of densification that I'm talking about should be the natural state of things in growing cities. When a city is fully built out and landlocked by its neighbors it can only grow by becoming denser, it's also natural that over time centrally located land and neighborhoods will become the most valuable in the metro all other things being equal (crime, schools, etc...). Some of these neighborhoods are going to be prime targets for this densification before others based on a confluence of factors like housing quality, location and general neighborhood condition. Logic being: the Eastside is the best located neighborhood in Lansing relative to the metro, wealthier eastern suburbs, both area downtowns, MSU, state government and hospitals; It's a neighborhood that has a lot of small subpar housing that's difficult to argue needs saving and will be relatively cheaper to buy out than some other areas. I'm not talking large developments, at least not predominantly. I'm talking encouraging 4-6 unit buildings on single lots with perhaps the ability to combine two or three lots with proportionally more units. The new form based code isn't that far from doing this, it even allows 6 unit buildings in some areas with similar lot sizes if I'm not mistaken.
Here's a couple videos that touch on relevant laws/regulations that prevent the kind of neighborhoods you see in Europe that everyone seems to fawn over on their vacations yet regulate out of existence at home:
I always harp on the long term stuff because building a better city is very long term prospect, it's taken 30 years of concerted urban rejuvenation effort to see (maybe) the first housing boom downtown. Things like a major museum expansion or starting a new one can take decades of fits & starts, fundraising and grant chasing. We have to think about how we want our city to look many decades from now and plan for that. This sudden bout of regulatory changes with city are a big step in the right direction imo.
btw, I don't want to sound argumentative but I do enjoy a bit of debate. It helps me hone and self-correct some of my own thoughts & opinions.
The city told them about the proposed rules for articulation and prohibiting different styles/materials from crossing multiple floors/horizontal segments and the blue and brown stripes on the wilx news story made me smack my forehead in frustration.