The discussions of the zoning changes also included considerable discussion of applying limitations on buildings through the use of character district overlays and the establishment of design guidelines. As I recall, the character districts were not implemented and the design guidelines were not mandatory. Neither have had a limiting impact impact on what could be built within the A2D2 areas.

The D-1 and D-2 zoning districts represented a dramatic change to downtown zoning. It was obvious at the time the changes were adopted that there would be unintended consequences and unforeseeable outcomes. That is the reason the A2D2 plan included a promise to revisit downtown zoning within a short time after adoption.

It is time to revisit the A2D2 plan and revise it to comply with the City’s Master Plan. The most important issue is the use of buffer areas between D-1 districts and nearby neighborhoods, both on the south side of William and the north side of Huron.

Sometime between May and August 2008, the planning commission decided to concede to the parcel owners at the corner of Huron and Division who complained (along with their attorneys) that their property would be devalued if it was made D2. This change to D1 was protested by many property owners north of Huron at that time. There was definitely no consensus on this matter.

Then, on the night of the final council vote on the new zoning, numerous amendments were brought forward by various council members. Some were adopted and some weren’t. A proposal to postpone for a month in order to further study some of these last minute changes was defeated. As a concession, a resolved clause was added to the council action that called for a review of the zoning after one year. After a year, this review was added to the planning commission’s work plan where it has floundered for two more years, but it is still there for all to see.

The review of the downtown zoning is long overdue–especially of the edge areas where D1 is currently designated next to residential areas, which is in direct conflict with the adopted master plan. Another such location is on South Main, between William and Packard.

I was recently made aware of a website prepared by the Tylers [link] that has an excellent list of resources on this subject. It is prepared from the viewpoint of an advocate, but contains many “neutral” items and also presents a well-fleshed array of the arguments for a revisiting of the zoning.

Wasn’t A2D2 just approved a few years ago following numerous and lengthy Ann Arbor style studies with lots of consultants’ billing hours? and wasn’t it ballyhooed at the time by a trio of women who called themselves the ‘downtown divas?’

Now the whole thing is considered a disaster and legal teams are called in to put a ring fence around the dangerous hole in the ground.

Am I getting the picture right? I often miss it.

The neighbors living to the north of downtown have hired a highly regarded attorney who specializes in such issues. That attorney believes the City is well within its rights to impose a moratorium to study and address the inconsistencies between the A2D2 zoning regulations and the City’s central area master plan.

The City attorney brags that he has never lost a case. [link] Of course, surrender is not counted when tallying wins and loses. For example, when litigating the underground parking lot FOIA dispute, the City quickly settled to avoid defeat. When faced with any possibility of a suit by any developer, the law department seems to encourage the Council to just give in.

The question now is how will the Council address the timid stance of the law department? If Council votes to impose a moratorium, the law department apparently already has admitted that it cannot defend that moratorium. Should Council seek an outside attorney with the expertise and ability to defend the moratorium? Time will tell.