From Alexis di Leo: “The area plan will eventually be uploaded, I need to get either a digital copy or a paper copy small enough for me to scan and upload. In the meantime, the hard copy is always available in City Hall.”

The original ordinance required the plans be available for seven days, 24 hours per day, prior to hearings. This was possible, because the police desk was open 24 hours, and the plans were placed nearby. Problem was, the plans on display did not match what was in the planning commission or city council packets, and in fact, the two did not match each other. The plans were stamped something to the effect of “see planning dept. for latest revisions”–something not possible to do after hours.

Now, I would not be so adamant as to require the plans to be available between midnight and 6 am, but I do think that it’s important to have access to up-to-date plans after hours for those who work 8-5–especially those who commute out-of-town, like my attorney. A system like eTrakit might be a suitable substitute for those who are computer-savvy and know how to access the internet, but as Vivienne notes and I have noted myself, it is seldom up-to-date, and almost never has the complete file or drawings posted.

The main point of my post, however, was to highlight the skewed priorities of this administration. Instead of working promptly to correct the code deficiencies and interpretation problems that caused so much stress for all, a much higher priority was placed on limiting after hours public access to files (and also removing any time restrictions for council to act on a site plan).

I was told that the zoning would be looked at after the “ZORO” project was complete (a re-formatting of the code), but as far as I know, that project has been abandoned (it was supposed to be completed last winter). And nothing has been done to correct the problems in the zoning related to definitions on roof heights, dormer size, combining lots, establishing the rear lot line, structural retaining walls crossing setbacks, etc., etc.

Thanks for this response to questions.

The controversial part will likely be this:

A request to rezone this parcel from D2 (Downtown Interface) to D1 (Downtown Core) with conditions. The petitioner has submitted an area plan in support of the rezoning request showing that a 145 ft tall, 148,876 sq ft mixed retail and residential building with surface and below grade parking could be built with the proposed zoning.

In eTrakit, I can’t find the “area plan” referenced in the text. Wondering who to ask to get the fastest response … head of planning Wendy Rampson would know who to ask … but ah, according to the eTrakit entry, the planning staff member whose been assigned to this request is Alexis Di Leo. Email query now out to Alexis.

As revised, the language reads:

5:135 (2) Area plans, site plans, site plans for Planning Commission approval, PUD site plans, and preliminary plats under review shall be displayed in a publicly accessible location in City Hall for at least 1 week prior to the City Council and Planning Commission public hearings. Plans shall be current at the time of placement and subsequent revisions, if any, shall be available in the Planning and Development Services Unit office.

In light of the ordinance language, I think “remove … entirely” is probably overstating it. But in the case of the proposed City Place project that prompted the controversy, there were multiple revisions to the project subsequent to initial submission (which I think is not terribly unusual), and to the extent that “minor” revisions can have a major impact on someone’s opinion about the project, it adds a burden to an interested member of the public. Namely, you have to verify: Is this version in the city hall lobby the current version, or is there an updated version?

I think the city’s eTrakit system is supposed to provide online access to current versions of site plans, but I have no direct experience with site plans and eTrakit. I’ve found it useful for tracking down whether a permit has been pulled for work being done (scaffolding on Main Street last winter) or for schematic of elevations (for the Varsity at Ann Arbor).

Letter from May 27, 2009 noting non-compliance: [link]

Re: [2] “to remove the public access requirement from the ordinance entirely.”

Link to Chronicle coverage of first reading of ordinance revision from July 6, 2010: [link]

Two years ago, I pointed out the City’s failure to comply with its own ordinance regarding the public display of up-to-date site plans prior to City Council and Planning Commission hearings. Instead of ordering staff to better comply with the ordinance, the Mayor and City Council acted very quickly to remove the public access requirement from the ordinance entirely.

Ironically, it was my review of those publicly-displayed site plans that helped identify many conflicting, erroneous, and poorly-interpreted zoning ordinances. While the City Council was able to quickly stifle the public’s access to information within just months, its been over two years and absolutely NOTHING has been done to correct the zoning ordinance deficiencies identified by my research.

It’s only a matter of time before another controversial development is presented that takes advantage of these same deficiencies and weak interpretations, causing unnecessary stress and acrimony in the community. This time, I’m afraid, it will be that much harder for the public to know what is happening and just a little bit easier for the “development-at-all-cost” crowd on Council to quietly get their way.

So you say Postema might be running for judge? No thanks.