.Plymouth Road
=====This article was written for the March 2023 OHMHA Newsletter
Transit Corridor Type 1 Zoning
Pros and Cons
- By Brad Pritts
March 2023
Background
Our “neighborhood” (specifically Plymouth Road) has been designated for possible application of TC1 (Transit Corridor 1) zoning. For more background, please see our October 2022 article first. As the title suggests, this article assumes you’re familiar with the basics, and considers the “pro’s and con’s” of the approach.
For a fuller description of the specifics of TC1, click below to download a file with detailed info.
=====This article was written for the March 2023 OHMHA Newsletter
Transit Corridor Type 1 Zoning
Pros and Cons
- By Brad Pritts
March 2023
Background
Our “neighborhood” (specifically Plymouth Road) has been designated for possible application of TC1 (Transit Corridor 1) zoning. For more background, please see our October 2022 article first. As the title suggests, this article assumes you’re familiar with the basics, and considers the “pro’s and con’s” of the approach.
For a fuller description of the specifics of TC1, click below to download a file with detailed info.
| tc1.wjc.docx |
Why is this being proposed? The goal is to encourage sustainable development, in particular by leveraging public transit. A specific goal is to evolve to a situation where individuals can fill all, or most, of their transportation without private cars. This is done with a combination of carrot and stick – some features to encourage use of transit, others to make personal vehicle use more difficult. Related hopes are to encourage “infill” development (this is additional building or expansion on established properties, increasing density.) Another goal is to ensure that future development uses architecture which promotes density, and more “mixed use” properties. A related concept is pursued by a planning philosophy known as “Complete Streets”, adopted by Ann Arbor some years ago. The essence of Complete Streets is that rather than being “single purpose”, streets should incorporate multiple aspects of life – that is, residential, retail and commercial – and offer multiple means of transportation – pedestrians, cars, transit, and bicycles. This philosophy is a major change from earlier concepts of urban planning and zoning, which generally limited most districts to a single use – such as residential, retail, commercial, or industrial. These general goals of a more integrated approach have been part of Ann Arbor’s long term plans for many years.
What is meant by density, and why is it beneficial?
A key goal of TC1 is to increase population density. What is density and why does it matter?
Urban density describes the degree of concentration or compactness of people or development in a city.
Overall the move to greater density and mandatory mixed use is intended to reduce vehicle traffic (and deter vehicle ownership). These goals are there for sustainability; they’re the main point. These are also intended to promote affordability. There are already “premiums” codified in the zoning code that would encourage, though not mandate, development of more affordable housing. Further, by enabling convenient living without needing an automobile total cost of living is reduced. TC1 by itself does not mandate any specific affordability requirements.
Additionally, greater density on transit routes helps leverage transit systems, by increasing potential ridership. This can fill up more of the empty buses AATA critics often cite.
TC1 is intended to replace several of the current commercial zoning districts, not single family residential. It would add, and promote, multifamily residential options to current commercial zones.
So far, the City has implemented TC1 in two areas – South State/Eisenhower and West Stadium.
After Council approved the rezoning of West Stadium, it also directed the Planning Department to study some further refinements proposed during the discussions. That work is still under way.
So what are the “Pro’s”?
To start this off let me quote a brief summary from Damn Arbor. This article is not attributed to a particular member of their team.) They have expressed their strong support for the TC1 implementation on Stadium.
_______________________________
Transit corridors are streets that have regular mass transit service. Each stop along the corridor has a walkable radius to destinations in the immediate area, be they retail, office, recreation, or residential. The goal of adding mixed use with lots of housing along transit corridors is aimed at increasing ridership on existing mass transit so that the services can expand, reduce car dependence and create more affordable living environments. Here let’s remember that affordability is not only the cost of one’s rent, but instead it’s the cost of rent/mortgage, utilities and transportation. The most expensive form of transportation is the personal automobile, between gas and maintenance/repairs, the cost adds up over time and increases as the car ages.
_______________________________
Built into TC1’s design is the expectation of improving sustainability, from two aspects in particular. First, reducing the use of passenger cars is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel use. Second, the focus on multifamily vs. single family will also improve sustainability, because multifamily by its design generally decreases utility usage. And allowing denser development can reduce the total costs of building by making better use of expensive land.
TC1 also supports a number of long term goals from the city’s Master Plan, in particular increasing density (so as to provide more housing with less tendency toward “urban sprawl”).
“Con’s” cited by opponents
Many of these points raised in the debates on the West Stadium/Maple Road proposal could apply to Plymouth Road as well. Complaints about the application of TC1 have come from all sides of the political spectrum. To oversimplify, it seems that many critics oppose the “sticks” inherent in TC1’s design, while others – presumably more progressive – argue that TC1 does not go far enough. A final group agree in concept but propose specific “fine tuning”.
In the details that follow, I will include some comments from citizen input during the Stadium/Maple discussion. In a number of cases, residents proposed various changes, some of which are not feasible, or at least within the direct responsibility of the Planning Department. Where I am aware of these, I comment on the specific reasons behind these limits.
Comments from the public regarding West Stadium
Sections in italics are direct quotes from the public input as recorded by the City staff. Nonitalic items are my additions/ comments.
Most of these originated from several public comment sessions hosted by the Planning Department. Some have continued and were repeated at a more recent ad hoc gathering held 9/28/22.(2)
Disagreements in the basic goals…
- Development density and height are too downtown-like, and not the right character for this area
- Lack of auto-oriented features – drive-through facilities, free parking, easy vehicular access – that some like, enjoy, and depend on. In fact, reducing parking availability is a specific goal of TC1. (I would rather debate religious views than get into this hot issue with Ann Arbor folk!) Most current zoning regs set minimum numbers for parking spaces, while TC1 sets a maximum. Parking structures are disallowed.
- Loss of commercial uses overall, and especially local businesses
This could come from several factors. First, TC1 explicitly prohibits some businesses, including many auto related businesses such as auto dealers, repair shops, and car washes. While these do have likely impact on the West Stadium project, they wouldn’t immediately affect the Plymouth corridor, as we don’t have any of these specific businesses today aside from several gas stations. - Effects to, and loss of, commercial uses in general and local businesses in particular
Other losses could come indirectly. For example, while supermarkets and other retailers are permitted, operators may be reluctant to operate with such restrictions as reduced parking or elimination of drive throughs.
- Public infrastructure insufficient to handle proposed density.
City Planning staff indicated that changes to “right of way” – that is, roads and bike lanes – are under the control of the City Engineering Department. So it is accurate that TC1 itself doesn’t directly address these. It does make some sense to coordinate these efforts.
- Overflow parking into adjacent residential neighborhoods
A risk is that while parking space can be reduced in the TC1 area, this may displace parkers to nearby residential neighborhoods. This is possible.
Proposed modifications/ “tweaks” to specific details of the plan
Many comments while supporting TC1 in principle want modifications to the plans.
- Necessity of buffers – setbacks, berms and walls, and so forth – for adjacent residential neighborhoods TC1 does specify tighter restrictions at the boundaries of residential neighborhoods, though as in anything there is room for debate on how much is appropriate.
- Coordination with upcoming Comprehensive Plan update
- Improving and ensuring adequate pedestrian and bicyclist safety, and maintenance of nonmotorized infrastructure with increased use and changing conditions (such as more shading)
- Logistical and procedural issues, such as timing, creating nonconformities, redeveloping nonconforming sites, notifications, how standards may apply to particular parcels
- Need for green space.
Concerns that TC1 is not sufficiently aggressive in affordability or sustainability. (Some noted that other City plans such as the A2Zero plan should be more explicitly included or coordinated.)
- Other City programs call for more prescriptive sustainability requirements, such as mandating “carbon neutral” construction. According to a presentation by the Planning Department, these standards are normally not a part of zoning, but rather of the Building Code. In Michigan the Building Code minimum standards are set by the State, not cities. So barring Lansing action this seems infeasible, and in any case does not belong in the zoning code.
Some other voices…
Former City Council member Hayner (3) was recently interviewed and weighed in on TC1. A few of his comments:
Not well coordinated with other planned changes – in particular, the building sustainability goals of A2Zero. This echoes one of the objections, discussed below.
Success is dependent on changing the mindset of many people regarding their preference for private cars!
Overall, many opinions on this overall program are probably going to be conditioned by your personal preference as discussed in Councilman Hayner’s comment #2 above – that is, to what extent have you adopted the goals, and what are your lifestyle preferences for cars vs. other means of transportation. Having grown up in the suburban Midwest, my personal experience has been “auto-centric”. Aside from a few years at university, I have always owned a car. I have had extensive experience in other countries – collectively nearly 5 years abroad for extended business trips. In many of these situations I used urban transit – subway and bus -- and long distance high speed rail, though even in those travels have relied heavily on taxis. And I am comfortable with this. Others with different backgrounds have sharply different preferences.
It’s important as well to recall that zoning by its nature is a very slow moving tool. When zoning changes, buildings and uses that once complied but don’t any longer are allowed to continue indefinitely, though they may not expand. These are known as “nonconforming uses”. One exception: Since TC1 reduces the requirements for open space around buildings, additional buildings could arrive fairly quickly. For example properties with large parking lots could add further structures, as occurred at Plymouth and Nixon some years ago with the construction of Starbucks, Great Clips and other adjacent businesses. This can be anticipated, as it would allow a real estate developer to get “more bang from the buck” from their existing land holdings--- provided there is demand. This of course is unpredictable.
By Ann Arbor standards, the zoning changes are occurring quickly; stay tuned!
Footnotes:
(1) DamnArbor.com, Special%20Issue_%20Transit%20Corridor%20Development%20In%20Ann%20Arbor.pdf. (web log hosting a diverse group of 7 Ann Arbor residents.)
(2) Reported by Michigan Daily, 9/29/22. Ann Arbor residents share concerns over rezoning in West side (michigandaily.com)
(3) Former Council member Hayner has been criticized for a number of comments he has made on unrelated issues. My inclusion of his quote is not intended as support or criticism of Mr. Hayner, but recognizes that he held a decisionmaking position at the time, and offers some thoughtful perspectives on this topic. Interview with host Bonnie Gabowitz can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dS8BsH4dLo&t=1287s
For more information:
Several good sources for details on TC1 are found on the web. These include:
City Initiated TC1 Rezoning - Stadium Boulevard Area (a2gov.org) provides an overview of the program to date. Prepared by city staff.
214 acres on Ann Arbor’s west side may be rezoned for high-density housing - mlive.com MLive article, June 2022, paywall.
Ann Arbor residents share concerns over rezoning in West side (michigandaily.com) Michigan Daily article, 9/29/22. Provides more details on citizen feedback and specific details about TC1.
City-Initiated TC1 Rezoning - State/Eisenhower Area (a2gov.org) – City Planning department overall plans for TC1, includes list of all areas proposed for TC1 such as Plymouth Road.
City Planning Commission – Info Session on TC1 – 6/14/22 – 1:53 total
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ew5QHS1iEY