Quote:
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.