Proposed Amendments to TC-1

Background- Rezoning the Maple/Stadium Area to TC-1

In November, Council approved the rezoning of 193 parcels in the Stadium and Maple corridor area to Transit Corridor zoning (TC-1). As you likely know, the previous mix of primarily commercial, limited industrial, and office zoning categories has resulted in a parking centric, strip mall style of development along Stadium and Maple in the 5th Ward. As the United States and Ann Arbor face a severe housing shortage, increasing housing supply is a City Council priority. TC-1 was created to facilitate, encourage, and support redevelopment and infill development to realize mixed use developments and achieve mixed use corridors that support and sustain transit service. Future re-development will be required to be at least two-stories, contain housing, and does not dictate a minimum amount of parking. Of course, banks will likely continue to require developers to include parking to receive financing, but hopefully we won’t continue to see the oversupply that exists in areas like Maple Village. It’s important to note that the rezoning to TC-1 does not prevent current businesses from operating or even making improvements to their buildings. However, new or significant property changes would need to conform with the new TC-1 zoning.

Next Steps— Improving TC-1 Zoning

During the rezoning process, most residents I heard from were quite supportive of rezoning to facilitate higher density residential and mixed use development along Stadium and Maple. However, a number of residents also raised concerns related to TC-1 and questioned whether it was a good fit for the Stadium/Maple area. Concerns included the scale of density, impact on the local retail environment, permitted businesses, and lack of adequate pedestrian amenities and space. I have considered the concerns raised and contemplated whether another zoning category (i.e. a yet undeveloped TC-2 category might be better), but came to the conclusion that small amendments to TC-1 will improve it’s application in the Stadium/Maple area and city-wide.

Although I recognize that the encouragement of higher density residential zoning is a big shift for those currently living in single-family homes/condos in the area, I don’t believe TC-1 should be amended to reduce the density of new residential development. The national housing shortage we’re facing requires us to make changes to zoning to legally enable more housing to be built. In Ann Arbor, over 70% of residentially zoned land is zoned single family only,

However, I do agree that some relatively small tweaks to TC-1 will have a big impact. I worked with City Planning Staff and Councilmember Lisa Disch (Ward 1), who serves as Council liaison to the Planning Commission, to develop a resolution directing Planning Commission to make some small, but important changes to TC-1.. Council will consider this resolution on Monday, Dec 5th, The resolution “directs the Planning Commission to evaluate and recommend amendments to the TC1 Zoning District or Unified Development Code (UDC) that:: 1) Incorporate limited automobile-related uses into the TC1 District, excluding drive throughs and gas stations, and 2) Address constraints of existing narrow rights of way.

Issue 1: Setbacks

TC-1 currently has a zero-foot minimum setback and maximum of 15 (mixed use) or 20 (townhouse/apartment). This means future buildings could be built right up to the property line. Decreased setbacks are intentional. Urban planning best practices recommend bringing buildings closer to the street to create a more pedestrian-friendly environment. Existing large parking lots between the sidewalk and buildings encourage driving and discourage walking (and biking). In our downtown where a wide sidewalk and amenity zone exists and streets have slow moving traffic and are much narrower, building to the property line is ideal. However, a zero foot setback can create challenges to the pedestrian experience when sufficient pedestrian amenities don’t exist in the public right of way (ROW) and aren’t envisioned.

One of the defining characteristics of Stadium Blvd/Maple Road is the wide five-lane road with a narrow sidewalk,. In many places, it’s only seven feet from the property line to the curb— and large street lights further narrow the sidewalk, There are no pedestrian amenities in the ROW- street trees, benches, and transit shelters. Transportation staff has indicated that moving the curb on Stadium is not planned/budgeted and might not be desirable (e.g. a transit-only lane in the future might be beneficial for this transit corridor), so gaining significant space through a road diet may not be the solution.

TC-1 requires greater density and we’re hoping it will encourage more nonmotorized use and transit usage. However, if multiple buildings are built to a zero-foot setback along Stadium/Maple, we will miss an opportunity to make transit/pedestrian improvements that will support increased usage.

In the long-run, I believe the City needs to create a vision for right of way improvements along this corridor and others across the City. Developing a Right of Way manual, similar to what the City of Seattle has created, would be incredibly beneficial. Seattle’s zoning code (23.53.015) supports the vision identified in the manual and requires that “a setback from the property line, or dedication of right-of-way, may be required to accommodate the improvements.” However, a ROW manual will take time to create and significant resources.

In the short-term, TC-1 needs to flex to provide additional setback space where narrow ROWs exist to provide space for future improvements and amenities which will benefit transit and nonmotorized users. These pictures illustrate how setbacks today provide space for necessary pedestrian and transit amenities— street trees, grass, a transit shelter with a bench..

Issue 2: Permitted Uses

TC-1 currently prohibits all automobile-oriented uses (see primary use table in Unified Development Code, page 34 onward). This too was intentional. Auto-oriented businesses, such as gas stations and drive throughs, are businesses that generate frequent car traffic, encourage car-centric development patterns, and pose a safety risk to walkers and bikers. However, some auto-oriented businesses can be beneficial. For instance, there may be a growing demand for car rentals as new car-free residents or one-car households move to the area. It would be helpful to have these located within walking distance of existing and new residents. Additionally, auto repair shops in close proximity to where people live offer residents the opportunity to take their vehicle in for a repair and then walk/bike home. The mix of services, retail, and restaurants is a characteristic residents living near this area value today and likely something future residents will as well.

TC-1 was modeled after downtown zoning (D-1/D-2) — but downtown zoning permits automobile-oriented by special exception use (SEU) . A special exception use requires additional review and scrutiny and Planning Commission has more opportunity to deny requests. My resolution directs Planning Commission to add limited automobile-related uses into TC-1 by SEU.

Issue 3: Impact of redevelopment on retail

Stadium Blvd is currently a strong retail corridor with a diversity of locally and minority owned businesses operating in older and more affordable commercial space. As this corridor is redeveloped, although mixed use is desired, it is only required at corners. Planning commission was hesitate to mandate retail, because there may be instances where is not a good fit. Time will tell and adjustments can be made if redevelopment does not spur mixed use development. However, it is fair to say, that new retail space that is built is likely to be more expensive — this may favor chains over local businesses.

Ann Arbor doesn’t have a strategy for supporting the development of local businesses or encouraging the development of affordable, flexible commercial space. This is an issue that is bigger than the rezoning of Stadium/Maple and not something that a change to TC-1 is likely to fix without a broader strategy. However, I am committed to working on this issue and have already identified a few other Council members interested in working with me to explore how other cities are tackling this issue, so we can bring back policy solutions to explore locally. I intend to bring a resolution to Council for consideration in the future after this issue has been considered and explored more thoughtfully. If this is a policy area you have expertise in, i welcome your insight.

Resources: Institute for Local Self Reliance - 8 Policy Strategies Cities Can Use to Support Local Businesses

Final note:

Some residents have asked why I didn’t wait until improvements were made to TC-1, before rezoning the Maple/Stadium corridor. That is easy to answer. I believe TC-1, even without amendments, is a significant improvement over the array of zoning classifications that previously existed along the corridor. Although I appreciate the businesses that operate along the corridor today, the development typology is not consistent with our community goals or aspirations. Rezoning to TC-1 is an incredibly positive step forward.