Lansing-East Lansing, MI Development

[LMich]

Phase II of Marketplace is coming along nicely. Photos couresty of Gillespie Group:







I've always liked the masonry on this one, but I will never get used to the lego-colored paneling.

[subterranean]

Agreed. Someone needs to beat up who ever keeps doing that siding.

[LMich]

It's a staple of the Gillespie Group and their architect (Studio Intrigue). It's terrible. They seem to be completely immune to the criticism. It's sad because while the Stadium District - their first major project - may be a little boring, that's better as a filler building that these crazy panels.

[deja vu]

The good news about these types of panel systems (or at least, what I keep trying to convince myself of) is that the panels / colors could be changed out down the road with relative ease. My hope is that once the buildings are 'settled in', a decade or two from now these will be so 'out-of-fashion' that whoever owns the buildings will be compelled to change them.

Or maybe, just maybe, like the once-admonished Eiffel Tower, these skittle-colored buildings will eventually become Lansing's most lauded landmarks, attracting tourists from as far as Kalamazoo to come admire them.

[LMich]

Originally Posted by deja vu

Thanks for your ongoing efforts in compiling all of this information. I appreciate the detail. It's an impressive effort to overhaul the zoning in this way.

Finally had to the time to compile the last little differences I see between the current zoning code and the proposed form-based zoning code. And it's good I waited, because it seems that the draft was changed after the public meetings for the code. I'll try and divide all of this up over multiple posts, first between use/form (residential, commercial/mixed-use, industrial and institutional), then some design standard stuff, and maybe a post about general observations. First...

Residential

- Single/two-family unit districts: While the code is more base around form than the current conventional code, there are still residential-only districts. Where there were previously four residential districts which covered single-family and duplex units: A, A-1, B & C), there are now six: R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, & R-6A/B. The old code grouped far more styles and lot sizes of housing together, where as the form-base code takes notes of different styles. R-1 through R-3 are classed suburban, and included the largest lot area minimums (6,000 square feet). R-1, for instance, only appears around the mansion and estate district around the Lansing Country Club. R-2 is for more modern subdivisions with homes of medium-sized lots. R-3 is for modern subdivisions with homes on deep lots and shorter heights than R-2. R-4 through R-6A/B are all classed urban and cover more inner-city areas with older homes on smaller lots.

The new zone that will offer the most transformational potential for single-family home districts in Lansing is R-6B. This subdistrict will allow for the development of attached single-family and appropriately scaled multi-family structures (up to six units) on small lots in the part of these districts sitting on non-local streets. As the current code is, for those largely single-family home districts which were not up-zoned during the original zoning of the city, you'd have to request a rezoning to put up any kind of small apartment building. This new district allows for there to be a more seamless transition to commercial and mixed uses beyond these residential districts by respecting the historic homes in the cores of these districts but allowing for new apartment buildings on the edges of this district. These new zone upzones quite swatch of current single-family home districts immediately south of REO Town (which is immediately south of downtown), and east and northwest of downtown.

- Multi-family unit districts: Whereas there are four multi-family-dominated districts in the current code: DM-1, DM-2, DM-3 & DM-4, there are only two in the form-based code: MFR & R-MX. The only distinction between the latter was housing density: DM-1 required a minimum 2,200 sq ft of lot area per efficiency unit while DM-4 required only 500 sq ft of lot area per efficiency. All four of these allowed single-family homes to be built, which I imagine was to keep the single family homes that stood on many of these lots in conformity. In the new code, MFR is multi-family campus residential, which is for large and rather suburban sited (though higher-density) apartment building complexes. MFR also doesn't allow any single-family units. However, it's residential density only matches that of the lowest density multi-family district of DM-1 in the current code. R-MX is a mixed residential district that is sort of like R-6B, but more multi-family focused. It's for older single-family districts that transitioned to more multi-family districts early in the cities history. The purpose of this district is to encourage the preservation of the remaining historic single-family homes in this district, while also encouraging small apartment buildings on vacant/underutilized lots. Oh, a big change is that it appears that max heights for residential-only structures (outside downtown) have been reduced from 100 feet (in DM-4) to 45 feet (MFT and R-MX). Simply put, between the density restrictions and the height restrictions, to build high-rise apartments/condos outside of downtown you're going to have to do it in mixed-use district in district centers and corridors - which will keep them out of single-family home dominated districts - and you're going to have to include accessory uses on the ground floor.

The last residential zoning is R-AR, or adaptive re-use residential. This is for encouraging the re-use of historic school building and other instutional space for primarily residential usage. All residential buildings types are allowed in this district, which would allow the construction of additional single family (detached and attached) units and apartment buildings on the same property in addition to the renovation of the old instutional space. While primarily residential in nature, R-AR also permits re-use of these properties for use for professional offices (doctor, lawyer, architect, etc.) and personal services (barber shop, beauty parlor, etc.), and with conditions the re-use of these properties as libraries, museums, hospitals, trade schools, medical clinics, etc. and with special use as research labs, which many of Lansing's old school buildings are currently used for.

- Site Layout and Dimensional Requirements: It appears that in single-family districts the max height has been raised from 33 feet to 35 feet, though I'm not sure why this was done. It still seems this only gets you a max of 2.5 stories, so it's not as if it gets you up to three story single-family homes. Front yards in the old code required a minimum of 20 feet (or average of the block face), where as the front yard requirements for the new single-family districts range from 20 to 25 feet. Backyards mins remain 30 feet. Side yard mins have been reduced from 6 feet to 5 feet. The biggest change is that lot width mins have gone from a ridiculous 60 feet to 30 feet (in R-MX), though in most districts the range is from 40 to 60 feet. Since much of Lansing was developed before the current code went into effect, and since all "lots or record" had been grandfathered in as "buildable," the 60-foot width min never meant much, but it was still an unhelpful requirement. The new code also explicitly bans off-street parking from front yards and garages can't project beyond a property's built-to line which will eliminate any new housing being built with the garage projecting in front of the house. This was never a big problem, but would put some existing apartment complexes and a few single-family homes in non-compliance in the new code.

- Architectural Standards: EIFS panels are only allowed on secondary facades (the facade(s) not facing onto a street). Building walls over 30 feet have to include some kind of design, window or recess. Floors have to be a minimum of 8 feet. A minimum of 20% of the ground floor of a residential structure must be windows. Ground floors must be differentiated from upper floors by a string course, etc. This was probably the biggest change from the previous draft, which had design standards for each building type (single-family homes, duplex/triplex, flats, townhouses, etc.). That ended up cutting down the code by nearly 60 PAGES. I actually liked those stricter standards.

- Upzoning: Eyeballing the current and form-based code draft map, the most significant upzoning I see are north Lansing north of the CSX tracks (smaller lots), a huge swath of southwest Lansing bound by Holmes to the north, Cedar to the west, Jolly to the south with Pleasant Grove running through the center (smaller lots), a huge swath of southeast Lansing bound by Jolly on the south, Cedar on the west, Pennsylvania on the east, and Greenlawn on the north (smaller lots). The current duplex-zoned district generally bound by MLK to the west, Pennsylvania on the east and Mount Hope on the south and the CN tracks to the north will now allow go almost entirely R-6 (allow multi-family buildings), as will the duplex districts immediately northwest of downtown and west of Old Town and the duplex districts on the lower eastside. The only downzoning I really see is the estate/mansion district around the Lansing Country Club (lot area mins get larger by a 1,000 sq ft).

I'll cover Mixed-Use/Commercial-dominated districts, next, and then maybe combine industrial and instutional ones since they have the fewest zonings. Then I'll cover parking requirements.

[LMich]

Mixed-Use/Commercial

Suburban & Mixed Use Urban Corridor/Neighborhood, Community & District Centers: The current code five predominately commercial (non-downtown) districts: D-1, D-2, E-1, F/F-1. All but E-1 (Local Shopping) - a predominately retail district - include residential as a primary or secondary usage. E-1 Apartment Shop was the go-to for large mixed use, and with the highest density residential district (DM-4) had the tallest height limits outside the downtown district.

Anyway, those have been folded into five formally (non-dowtown) mixed-use districts: S-C, MX-C, MX-1, MX-2 & MX-3. S-C is Suburban Corridor and the only one that allows without condition parking situated at the front of the lot. In fact, the major change in commercial districts in the new code is that it spells out placement of parking on a lot. And fortunately, S-C will now only allowe frontyard parking (unconditionally) south of Jolly Road on the southside and along East Street. Both of these lie at the far southern and northern edges of the city respectively. Oh, and North Grand River in the northwestern corner of town. Here they are in pink:





MX-C is Mixed Use Urban Corridor. This is a usage largely to densify existing suburban-lite corridors in the city. This district will cover most of the north-south corridors on the southside of the city including South Cedar, South Pennsylvania, South MLK, and South Washington south of urban REO Town. North of the river it will cover sections of West Saginaw, far East Kalamazoo, East Grand River east of Old Town/Northtown, and a few little spot zonings outside the core. MX-1, 2 & 3 are centers centered around major intersections. The difference between these three is largely one of scale (allowed building types get taller and larger from 1 to 3). They seek to densify existing centers. MX-1 are small "neighborhood centers" at places like Pine & Saginaw on the westside, Kalamazoo & Allen on the lower eastside, Grand River & Willow on the northside, and on the southside at Pleasant Grove & Holmes, Waverly & Jolly, Pleasant Grove & Jolly and a few others. MX-2 are suburban-like "community centers" such as Frandor on the far eastside, Logan Square in the middle of the southwest side at MLK and Holmes, and Cedar & Jolly in the middle of the southside. This will encourage the filling-in of the giant parking lots. MX-3 are "district centers" centers on the most urban non-downtown corridors and intersections such as Old Town, REO Town and East Michigan Avenue as well as a few spot zonings along South Cedar. Map showing the southside corridors and centers:



Downtown Urban Edge, Flex & Core: The current code has one downtown zoning district: G-1. Lansing has always been lucky to have this. This district had no height limits, firm parking requirements, setback limits, always allowed mixed-used by right, etc. Unfortunately, developers still developed a lot of suburban stuff downtown, or at least stuff that didn't take pedestrians into account. The proposed code splits G-1 into three different districts: D-1, D-2 & D-3. D-3 Downtown Core is the direct equivalent to G-1 except that it expands the core. With a few exceptions, it has been confined to a three-block-deep area in between the river and the Capitol, though it did minimally cross the river.

D-2 Downtown Flex is made to build up the area on the eastbank outside the part of it that is part of the downtown core. This formerly industrial area has been redeveloped in fits-and-starts. D-2 allows for more density than what's currently there, but caps heights at 40-60 feet depending on the type of street. D-2 is also used to connected downtown and Old Town to the north, finally, via the eastbank. D-1 is pretty self-explanatory; it's the edge of downtown. These are usually neighborhoods with a mix of lower intensity uses and building types. The height limit here is kept at 40, and the purpose of the district is to encourage the preservation of old houses in between larger buildings. Detached housing are allowed in D-1; they are not allowed in D-2 and D-3. Attached housing is allowed in D-2, but not in D-3. The only kind of housing type allowed in D-3 are "urban-mixed use" building types (i.e. multi-story, multi-family buildings) and "tower & podium."

- Site Layout & Dimensional Requirements: The biggest change is that the proposed code regulates buildings placement even more than the former so that in just about every mixed use/commercial zoning district outside of Suburban Corridor, all buildings on corner lots are required to be centered on said corner. That means no more parking lots on corners. Another big thing is that frontyard setbacks have been reduced in all districts where they are required by 5 feet (from 20 feet to 15 feet) to push buildings closer to the street. Height requirements are a mixed bag. As I said earlier, in E-1 Apartment Shop mixed zoning in the current code you can get up to 100 feet, but that was a very rare zoning. The most common commercial zoning, F/F1, had a 40-foot heigh limit. All commercial height limits now range between 40 feet to 60 feet. This would have likely cut down a lot of existing high-rises outside downtown. For instance, the new SkyVue Apartments at Frandor would have been tough to get built as-is. Another significant change is that buildings on lots adjacent to the residential zones will have to have "stepbacks" above their second floors, except in D-3 Downtown Core. Ultimately, the stepback must result in the highest point of the building being setback at least the distance of the height of the building. So if the building is 50 feet tall and adjacent to a home, the highest floors of the part of the building adjacent to the home would have to be setback 50-feet from the line of the first and second floors. Finally, as I'd said earlier, the other big change is that in most of these districts, parking will only be permitted to the side or rear of the building.

- Architectural Regulations: The new code requires the second floor of a building in a mixed-use/commercial zone to be at least 14 feet from the ground elevation. Upper floors can't be under 8 feet. Storefront facades must have 60% of the building wall being windows, non-storefront ground floors 40%. Primary facades must be brick, stone, or other "similar materials" determined by the zoning administrator. Secondary facades (those not facing streets) can also include EIFS panels, wood, metal, etc.

- Upzoning: Basically, every commercial zone has been upzoned. Residential dwellings are now allowed as part of every zone either by themselves or in combination with another useage.

- Business District Maps:

Downtown - Current Core vs. Proposed Core






Old Town: - near-northside



REO Town: - near-southside

[subterranean]

You are an even bigger nerd than I originally thought Thanks for laying this out! I can't believe it has taken this long to get done! I went to so many charrettes and did a "Workshop in a Box" for Design Lansing way back in 2009!

[LMich]

I'm actually just surprised the city was progressive enough to go along with something so transformative. I never thought Design Lansing would amount to much, let alone a complete replacement of the city's zoning code.

Anyway, a break from that for a minute. Another high-rise gets proposed for East Lansing - this one at Grand River and Bogue in East Village at its border with downtown - and if built would be the city's tallest:

Chicago developer proposes 10-story apartment building at site of East Lansing 7-Eleven

By Haley Hanson | Lansing State Journal

October 24, 2017

A Chicago-based developer has proposed a 10-story, mixed-used building on the eastern edge of downtown East Lansing.

Core Spaces LLC has pitched a project near East Grand River Avenue and Cedar Street with 12,220 square feet of retail space and 347 apartments.

It is proposed at 127 feet to the main roof, 132 feet to the deck that rises above half the roof, and then 152 feet to the top of the elevator tower. The parking will be be one level underground, along the first floor mezzanine and then on the second floor. The good thing is that it will be oriented to the back of the property so as not to be seen from the front elevation. Georgio's and 7/11 get to keep their businesses on site, and then there is also speculative space for other commercial businesses.

Oh, the sidewalks along Grand River get widened to 22 feet and the ones on Bogue to 20 feet as per the requirements of the East Village district. The roof has an amenity deck since so much of the lower levels are already accounted for.

[deja vu]

^ Transformative would be an understatement, if that gets built as shown. Is this still referred to as 'The Hub' (referenced in posts #s 723 and 724)?

[LMich]

I was talking about the FBC for Lansing being transformative.

Yes, this is the formal proposing of The Hub in East Lansing. The other two proposals on Grand River also basically ran up to the city's height limit and it fact would have been bigger deals (one truly mixed use, and one with a ground floor Target). The Hub is glorified student housing, quite frankly, but it's better than student sprawl apartment complexes.

[deja vu]

Originally Posted by LMich

I was talking about the FBC for Lansing being transformative.

For sure. I actually didn't even realize that you used the word transformative at the top of your post; just coincidence!

[LMich]

Finishing up the zoning districts...

Industrial Districts: The current code has three predominantly industrial/warehouse zoning districts: G-2 Wholesale, H Light Industrial, and I Heavy Industrial. G-2 is technically linked with the current downtown district zoning, even though it shares much more in common with industrial districts. Anyway, industrial seems to be the most unchanged as it relates to the proposed code: IND-1 Suburban, IND-2 General, and IND-3 Urban. These kind of explain themselves with the differences between the current and proposed districts being that the former is largely on use and the latter is form.

Site Layout & Dimensional Requirements: The difference between these three include height (suburban industrial max: 25 feet, urban/general max: 60 feet). This a a huge decrease from the max height in the old industrial districts: 120 feet, and I'm not quite sure why. Setback and build-to lines also explain the difference. Urban industrial has to have more street frontage (75%) than suburban (50%). Urban and general industrial also aren't required to have front or side yard setbacks on certain streets, whereas the minimum front setback in suburban industrial is 25 feet in all cases, and it's side sidebeck has to be 10 feet. The only other significant difference is where parking is allowed. In urban and general industrial parking can only be in the side or back yard of a lot. In the current code, depending on the height of an industrial building, a building could be required to have a 45-foot front yard, and they didn't regulate were parking could be located. Something in the proposed code no present in the current code is the step-back requirement in other districts where each story above the second must be stepped back at least the distance of the height of the building.

Architectural Regulations: 30% of a facade facing a street must have windows, brick/stone/"other similar materials" are allowed on primary facades, ground floors must differentiated from floors above it by a "horizontal expression line," etc.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Institutional Districts: This is a new set of districts, as there is no equivalent in the current code. Institutional forms included uses such as hospital, schools, colleges, a few large houses of worship, government and secondary commercial and residential uses: INST-1 Suburban & INST-2 Urban. The only difference in these as their names allude to is that INST-1 requires a minimum 30-foot setbacks, and INST-2 Urban generally requires no setbacks except on certain streets where the setbacks are 15 feet. They both have a 60-foot height limit (by right). There above-second-floor stepbacks only apply when next to a single-family residential district as opposed to any residential district. INST-1 is almost exclusively located on the south side, and there are about a handful of parcels zoned that district. These districts don't have their own architectural regulations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parking: There weren't many changes for parking, which was a little disappointing. Residential requirements remain the same: Single/Two-family: 2 per dwelling, Multifamily: 1 per efficiency dwelling, 1.5 per one-bedroom, 2 per two-bedroom or greater.

There seemed to actually have been an increase as it relates to high schools from one per 10 students to one per 5 students. On the other hand, parking was reduced for large shopping centers from 1 per 110 square feet (of usuable space) to 1 per 200 square feet (of useable space). Parking requirements were also reduced for sit-down restaurants from 1 per 60 square feet to 1 per 125 square feet. A big one was that fastfood restaurants are only required to 1 per employee + 6 per serveice counter/station whereas they are currently required to have 15 spaces + 1 per 60 square feet + 1 per 2 employees (max shift). Office remains the same at 1 per 200 square feet for general office use.

The biggest thing, however, are the parking reductions and max parking. You can get a 20% reduction if you located at a mass transit stop, offer shared parking, provide a car-sharing service, or commission a parking study to show the requirement to be too much. Also, unlike the current code, parking can't exceed 20% of what is required.

[LMich]

Long time in the making, but after voters approved the city to sale off the old Waverly Hills Golf Course and Michigan Avenue Park in Lansing Township in 2012, it looks like the City of Lansing will finally be able to unload it. The city drew up a purchased agreement with Grand Rapids-based Northern Capital Investments on October 13 which includes the city selling the 121-acre site for $2.2 million, with all the proceeds being put back into the city's parks budget. The next step is for the city council to set a public hearing before the end of the year. There is no word on what this company has planned for the site.

The course and park were developed by the city in the 40's in the western end of the western portion of the township. It lies along Waverly Road between Saginaw and Michigan, and is basically the only parcel of its kind in the urban area (the large factory sites will require tons of remediation). Lansing had a deal to sell it in 2014, but the township blocked the sell claiming that they were wanting to work through overhauling their zoning code. This time, however, the township seems excited to get this going. Hopefully, they keep part of it parkland.





Also, tonight, the city council voted to change the name of Grand River Avenue from Oakland to Pine to César E. Chávez Avenue. This was to right what the city council saw as a wrong when the city changed Grand Avenue to César E. Chávez Avenue in 1994 before it was overturned by voters the next year. The street goes through the heart of Lansing's Mexican American community and historic Old Town.


Nick King | Lansing State Journal

This is how the signs currently appear. The change will be moving Cesar Chavez to the standard/legal green signs and placing Grand River as an "honorary" or "historic" placemarker beneath. The change will occur on News Years Day.

[LMich]

After rumors were made public that the developers of Center City in downtown East Lansing were pulling out of the project (which includes an urban Target), the developer recently signed the development agreement moving the project forward. Demolitions of the existing structures are imminent.

East Lansing Center City project is back on, demolition to begin in mid-November

By Haley Hansen | Lansing State Journal

October 31, 2017

The Center City District project in downtown East Lansing is moving forward again.

East Lansing Mayor Mark Meadows and Chicago-based Harbor Bay Real Estate Advisors signed the master development agreement for the project on Thursday, and preparations for demolition are expected to begin next week.

[LMich]

A local developer is planning to convert a large factory immediately south of I-496 into up to 160 apartments at 735 East Hazel.


The Wing by NewCityOne, on Flickr

Location:


TheWing2 by NewCityOne, on Flickr

It's currently going through the approval process, but has passed all of the tests so far. This is a big deal as this is not an area anyway saw as an area that would see redevelopment anytime soon. While this industrial railroad corridor has seen quite a few conversions and new construction north of the freeway as downtown has expanded east, the freeway had cut this area off along Hazel Street which has been mostly industrial since its development over a century ago.

Anyway, it shows redevelopment has definitely spread beyond the existing hot-spots.

[Ex-Ithacan]

Great news about the Center City project. And I like it whenever brownfields get redeveloped. There's a big one proposed in Ithaca:

https://ithacating.com/2016/04/20/th...-introduction/

https://ithacating.com/2016/05/17/th...and-phase-one/

Almost like a whole new suburb.

[LMich]

I'm really annoyed that they were allowed to put vinyl siding on the secondary facades, but The Venue on East Michigan Avenue is completed which allows them to move on down the block to start construction on Provident Place.

Matthew Dae Smith | LSJ

The Venue at East Town opens its doors on the East Michigan Avenue

By Haley Hansen | Lansing State Journal

November 9, 2017

The building includes about 40 units including studio, one-bedroom and two-bedroom layouts. Rents start at $775, and amenities include balconies and in-unit washers and dryers. The apartments have barn doors, tall windows and granite counter tops.

The building also has more than 15,000 square feet of commercial space. The first floor will be home Strange Matters Coffee, Beikoku Shidokan Karate, Wild Strawberry and Local Tattoo and Laser.

About 3,000 square feet of retail is still available. Gillespie said he has interested renters and hopes to announce a new tenant or tenants in the coming weeks.

And, on Provident Place:

And one block away from the Venue at East Town, Gillespie is planning another four-story development called Provident Place at East Town. The $7 million project will include more than 30 residential units and 9,500 square feet of retail space on the first floor.

I'd really like to see a new crop of developers start showing their hands in Lansing.

[deja vu]

Originally Posted by LMich

I'm really annoyed that they were allowed to put vinyl siding on the secondary facades, but The Venue on East Michigan Avenue is completed which allows them to move on down the block to start construction on Provident Place.

Is the vertical, charcoal grey on the top floor-front facades metal siding, or is that vinyl too? To me, one of the strengths is that it at least extends the street wall.

[LMich]

Not 100% sure of what's on the front facade. BTW, this replaced more than half a block of historic buildings, so the only way it's extending the streetwall is vertically.

In other news, Mayor Bernero is still trying to ram through the selling of city hall for a hotel. The administration picked Beitler Real Estate Services out of Chicago. Beitler's proposal would move city hall (but without the police headquarters and jail and district court) to where the old Lansing State Journal Headquarters are. Beitler would then renovate the existing building into a hotel.



I've never been supportive of the process which was rushed in the last year of his administration, and finding out that it doesn't include all the existing departments at city hall just reinforces that this is putting the cart before the horse. Anyway, Bernero would need a supermajority on council to get this down by the end of the year. I don't think he has that. The new city hall can't be an after-thought of this process and this is exactly what this has been a kind of "Well, we'll find a acceptable site after we've sold the current city hall." Nope.

Oh, and site prep work began for Center City District in downtown East Lansing on Monday.

[hood]

Originally Posted by deja vu

Is the vertical, charcoal grey on the top floor-front facades metal siding, or is that vinyl too? To me, one of the strengths is that it at least extends the street wall.

I'm pretty sure it's fiber cement aka hardie board, as is the lap siding on this building.