The plain brick wall on the Michigan Theater Building on East Liberty in downtown Ann Arbor – rising up behind the storefronts – will be the site of a solar panel installation funded by XSeed Energy, a program of the Clean Energy Coalition and the city of Ann Arbor. (Photos by Mary Morgan.)

As a project manager for the Ypsilanti-based Clean Energy Coalition, Bona specializes in this art of saving energy. She is quick to add, however, that “my goal isn’t to make people sacrifice and suffer. It’s to make them see opportunities where life can be better and, oh, by the way, it uses a lot less energy.”

But it’s not just about using less energy. Bona and others in the Ann Arbor area are involved with projects that focus on generating alternative energy, too – in particular, solar power. Prompted in part by the lure of tax credits and available state and federal funding, an increasing number of efforts are underway to install solar panels on individual residences, businesses, nonprofits and schools – including, as one recent example, the Rudolf Steiner School of Ann Arbor.

And in mid-August, the Ann Arbor Historic District Commission unanimously approved two solar installation projects in historic districts, one for a private home on South Seventh Street, and another at the Michigan Theater. With some citing concern over aesthetics, commissioners acknowledged that they’ll likely see more of these requests in the future, and discussed the need to develop guidelines for solar installations within the city’s historic districts.

City Solar Initiatives: XSeed Energy

The Michigan Theater solar project is being funded by an especially ambitious program that Bona is leading, called XSeed Energy. The program, part of the Clean Energy Coalition (CEC), aims at installing solar projects and encouraging “community-supported local energy,” Bona says, “which means that whether it’s solar or wind or geothermal, it’s locally-sourced energy versus having coal shipped from West Virginia.”

XSeed evolved from a partnership between CEC and the city of Ann Arbor, through the U.S. Dept. of Energy’s Solar America Cities program. In 2007, the U.S. Dept. of Energy declared Ann Arbor one of 25 Solar America Cities. As a result, the city received $632,000 in funds dedicated to advancing solar energy. Since then, the city has published a comprehensive report titled “Solar Ann Arbor: A Plan for Action” – a 114-page document that Bona strongly recommends reading. XSeed was launched to help implement the plan. [.pdf of the plan's executive summary – the full document is available on the city's website.]

Andrew Brix, the city’s energy programs manager, worked closely with the consultant who created the plan, and says of its purpose: “It helps to remove or reduce the barriers associated with solar energy, such as cost, and tries to allow [solar energy] to become a mainstream production of energy.” Bona adds that the plan details the “potential for Ann Arbor, as a city, to be entirely powered by locally-generated power.”

Solar panels are installed on the shelter roof of the Ann Arbor Farmers Market.

One of the city’s already-installed solar projects is a 10-kilowatt solar array at the Ann Arbor Farmer’s Market, put in place in 2008 with money from the Dept. of Energy along with matching funds from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Not only does the system advance the goal of using solar energy, it also tackles another facet of the city’s solar plan: awareness. The strategically placed array is easily within view, and – given the popularity of the farmer’s market – is guaranteed many viewers.

Public awareness is key, says Bona, who is also a member of the city’s planning commission: “The goal of XSeed is two-fold: one is to implement the installation of solar panels in lots of different locations – starting with nonprofits. The second piece is to make the general public aware of the installation, aware of how it works, have read-outs where people can see how much power it’s generating.”

The city is already providing information for property owners to raise awareness about the potential of solar energy. Wayne Appleyard, chairman of the city’s energy commission, explains that city staff, with the help of some University of Michigan interns, developed a system that estimates how much energy each residential home could generate via solar power in Ann Arbor.

Residents can use that system by visiting the city’s website and entering their address. They’ll then see a list of tabs, including one that’s labeled “Solar Potential.” Clicking on that tab generates a listing that looks like this:

Address: 101 Your Street
Full Zip Code: 48103-4357
Solar Potential: Excellent
Solar Hot Water Candidate: Yes
Roof Size:  756 sq. ft.
Estimated solar PV potential: 0.55 - 1.09 KW
Estimated electricity produced: 717.3 - 1434.61 KWh/yr
Estimated electricity savings: 304.9 - 383.81 per year
Estimated greenhouse gas savings: 1.65 - 2.36 tonnes CO2/yr

-

Appleyard, who has been a member of the energy commission for over 10 years and chair for the past year, cautions that the information is “an approximation.” But it’s useful as a guide for homeowners who are interested in the solar-energy option. Encouraging the use of residential solar energy is an explicit city goal, as outlined in its effort to put solar installations on 5,000 roofs by 2015, primarily for solar hot water systems.

Working Within a Historic District

While the city has a history of advocating for solar energy, it’s not common for solar projects to be located within the city’s historic districts. But during the Historic District Commission’s Aug. 12 meeting, the group unanimously approved two proposed solar initiatives: one for a Seventh Street residential home, and one for the Michigan Theater that’s funded by XSeed Energy. When completed, it will be the most high-profile solar project in the city.

In early 2010, XSeed began an application process for a solar panel project. The nonprofit Michigan Theater had the most potential of the applicants for two reasons, Bona explained. First, the project at the Michigan Theater offers an additional aspect of awareness because of the theater’s downtown location and because the system, once installed, would be easily visible from the street – the solar array will be installed on the south-facing wall of the theater, rather than on the out-of-sight roof.

As another factor in choosing Michigan Theater, Bona also cites the willingness of the theater’s staff – including executive director Russ Collins – to work with XSeed and fundraise, bringing in money to fund future projects.

Along with installing the solar system, XSeed required the Michigan Theater to reduce its energy use by 5%. Including the 5% that the solar array will offset from the theater’s electrical use, the entire project will reduce the theater’s need for fuel-based electricity by 10%.

“The goal with solar is not to replace the electricity we’re using today, but to step back and reduce the wasted energy,” says Bona, in explaining XSeed’s requirement for separate conservation measures. “Then we won’t need as much solar to make up the difference.” It’s an approach akin to avoiding the food processor while making pesto.

While the Michigan Theater was the first of the applicants selected by XSeed, Bona says they intend to do more projects.

Deliberations at the HDC: Questions, Concerns – and Approval

At their Aug. 12 meeting, historic district commissioners spent about 90 minutes discussing the two solar proposals. The first was for a home at 553 S. Seventh St., just north of West Madison in the Old West Side historic district. Homeowner Chris Hewett was asking for a “certificate of appropriateness,” which would allow him to proceed on installing solar panels on the roof of his 19th-century house.

The house at 553 S. Seventh St., with an indication of one option for installing solar panels on the roof. This image was included in the Aug. 12 meeting packet for the Ann Arbor Historic District Commission.

At the request of the city’s planning staff, he presented three configurations for installing the panels – commissioners were asked to weigh in on which of the three options would be most preferable, from their perspective.

Hewett told commissioners that he and his wife bought the house about a year ago, and were planning to make it more sustainable and energy efficient, while at the same time restoring its historical features. He said they were trying to take advantage of the credits available through DTE and federal programs, which would make the project financially feasible.

He said they use about 3 kilowatts of energy each month, and that the solar panels would likely generate about 1 kilowatt. In the future, they might return to the HDC to seek permission to install additional panels, he said.

Some commissioners posed questions about structural issues related to placing the array of 3-feet-by-5-feet panels on the roof. Kristina Glusac stated repeatedly that she felt there was insufficient information provided about the structure of the house and how the panels would be installed. Lesa Rozmarek was concerned about the possibility of ice damming.

Some of the commissioners were concerned about aesthetics, and initially wanted to choose an option that would minimize the visual impact of the panels. That issue was reflected in the staff report, presented by historic preservation coordinator Jill Thacher:

Staff’s initial thoughts on solar panels are that they are an acceptable, reversible addition to residential structures in historic districts if the panels a) match the color of the roof, b) match the angle of the roof and do not project more than eight inches above it, and c) do not cover more than 30% of the roof surface on which they are installed if any part of the panel is visible from a street or sidewalk, and most importantly, d) do not detract from the historic character of the house or destroy, obscure, or damage character-defining features.

During the time available for public comment, several people spoke – including many who were attending the meeting in connection with the Michigan Theater project, and who responded to some of the concerns raised by commissioners.

Saying he was a huge advocate of historic preservation, Matt Grocoff – founder of Greenovation TV – noted that he lived down the street from Hewett, and that he intends to make his home the oldest in America to achieve net-zero energy. While he was excited by the discussion, he said the commissioners were asking the wrong questions about the aesthetics. “The real question is what point is there in preserving our history if we don’t protect our future?” He urged commissioners to set a precedent by unanimously approving the installation of solar panels.

Clean Energy Coalition project managers Dave Strenski and Christina Snyder both spoke to the commission, addressing some of the technical concerns. Both have worked on other solar panel installations, and said they didn’t have problems with drainage or ice damming. Strenski, who volunteers with Solar Ypsi and did the installation of panels at the Ypsilanti city hall, said it was dumb to install the panels in a way that wouldn’t yield the highest efficiency. Shading was another factor to consider, he said – if any part of the array is in shade, it affects the performance of the entire system.

When asked by commissioner Tom Stulberg for his thoughts on the question of aesthetics, Strenski said aesthetics is in the eye of the beholder. Most people who install solar panels are proud of them and want them to be visible, he said, but energy efficiency – not aesthetics – should be the main factor.

Later in the meeting, HDC chair Ellen Ramsburgh said it was important for the commission to weigh in on placement. Part of their job was to make sure the additions didn’t detract from the historic character of the house, she said, and a roof is a very visible part of that. In general, she said, she preferred a less-distracting placement of the panels.

The fact that the solar panels could be removed was compelling for several commissioners, and some mentioned that they had a steep learning curve on this issue. But despite some concerns, the project received unanimous support from commissioners, giving the homeowner the option of choosing which solar array would work best for the site.

Next up was the Michigan Theater project on East Liberty, an installation on the south-facing wall of the main theater building, which is located in the State Street historic district. Though the wall is set back 58 feet from the front of the shops along East Liberty, the panels will be visible from the street.

The staff report recommended approval of the project, but again brought up aesthetic issues. Of particular concern to the XSeed project team was a possible restriction on color. From the staff report:

Staff supports the proposal if the panels and their supporting armature are a neutral, and preferably matte, brown, gray, or black color when feasible. Very conspicuous panels, such as bright blue ones, and bare metal frame finishes should be avoided if they detract from character-defining features of the structure and neighboring ones.

In addressing the commission, Bonnie Bona noted that the color of the panels is determined by the technology that’s used to create them, and that she would not want to restrict their ability to select the appropriate technology for the project. They plan to put the project out to bid, and would be open to new technologies, she said.

Mark Ritz, a volunteer with the Clean Energy Coalition who’s working with the XSeed program, elaborated on that topic, saying he’d researched the different types of solar panels available and that almost without exception, the panels are dark blue, mounted on silver anodized aluminum frames. The panel absorbs light and creates electricity from the light it absorbs, he explained. The most efficient wavelengths of light are the longer ones, he added, so what’s reflected are the shorter wavelengths – the dark blue and violet, which are not as efficient in being converted to electricity. By imposing a color restriction, he said, it would restrict their choices immensely in selecting the best technology for this site.

Both Snyder and Strenski spoke again in support of the project. Snyder noted that the panels that commissioners might find the most “distracting” from an aesthetic view – made of polycrystalline silicon, with the crystals showing – are those she finds most beautiful. “I could stand and look at them for hours,” she said. “It’s almost like looking at fire or moving water.”

Strenski encouraged commissioners to check out seminars offered by the Great Lakes Renewable Energy Association, based near Lansing. In addition to solar energy, the group provides training for wind energy too. “Wind energy’s going to be next on your list here,” Strenski said.

Andrew Brix, who’s a member of the XSeed advisory board, also addressed the commission. He mentioned that the city council approved a “green energy challenge” in 2006, with the goal of achieving 20% renewable energy use by 2015. He said he hoped the HDC would support the project and that they could continue this conversation about solar installations in historic districts, finding ways to address both the needs of historic preservation and the energy goals of the city.

During the commission’s deliberations, Lesa Rozmarek pointed out that the panels are being deliberately placed in a location that’s very visible. She said she didn’t have a problem with it in this case, but it’s something the commission should be aware of.

Diane Giannola said that a major point with this project is that the panels will be placed on a plain brick wall, and won’t interfere with the building’s historic front. She said she liked the educational aspect of the project, too.

The commissioners voted unanimously to issue a certificate of appropriateness for the Michigan Theater solar installation.

Coda to HDC Approval

In a follow-up email, Bona told The Chronicle that XSeed has budgeted about $30,000 for the Michigan Theater installation – $10,000 per kilowatt for a 3 kilowatt array. Bids are expected back from solar installers by the end of September. For other recent projects, prices have been in the range of $7,000 to $9,000 per kilowatt.

They expect to get about $15,000 from the DTE SolarCurrents program. The program allows the energy utility to buy renewable energy credits (RECs) from the state – credits that would otherwise go to homeowners or businesses. This helps the utility meet Michigan’s renewable energy standard, which was established by Public Act 295. The standard is a state mandate for Michigan electric utilities to generate 10% of their power from renewable resources by 2015.

In addition, XSeed is using the Michigan Theater installation to raise funds from corporate sponsorships, private donations and grants for public awareness efforts and future projects. That funding, in turn, will allow XSeed to provide incentives for private projects at residences, businesses and organizations. XSeed will also be pursuing public installations to provide power to residents, businesses, and organizations that don’t have adequate solar access on their own sites.

The focus on solar power, Bona wrote, is because of attractive incentives that are currently available to offset the cost of installation. In the future, XSeed will be looking at other renewable energy sources, too.

DTE, State Incentives Help Rudolf Steiner School

Yet another solar installation is coming in October – this one at the Rudolf Steiner School, on the campus of its high school on Pontiac Trail. The school received funding through two grants in June of this year: one from the Michigan Renewable Schools Program, which is funded by the Michigan Public Service Commission and administered by Energy Works Michigan; and one from DTE through its SolarCurrents program.

Rudolf Steiner School will receive $1,000 annually, says Sandra Greenstone, the school’s administrator, and is expected to save another $1,000 in electricity costs – about 12,000 kilowatt hours’ worth. In addition to a solar installation, the school will be making energy-saving changes based on results of an energy audit funded by the Michigan Renewable Schools Program, such as replacing windows and using energy-efficient light bulbs and fixtures.

Appleyard, of the city’s energy commission, considers the importance of the DTE program to be paramount in the accessibility of solar-powered systems. “It makes pretty good sense,” he says. “Certainly with DTE’s [SolarCurrents] program, photovoltaic arrays are a relatively secure investment in these times of uncertainty … since you’re signing a 20-year contract with DTE that basically guarantees that they’re going to pay you upfront money and then pay you every month for whatever you generate.”

Though DTE’s SolarCurrents program is viewed as progressive, hopes are set still higher for the possibility of incentives by the city, if pending state legislation is passed.

Andrew Brix, the city’s energy programs manager, believes the single most helpful piece of legislation is PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy). Through the program, the city would use municipal bonds  to fund the upfront installation of a solar system to a resident’s home. The resident would then pay the city through property taxes in the coming years – probably over 15 to 20 years.

Wayne Appleyard and Bonnie Bona at a joint working session of the Ann Arbor planning commission, energy commission and environmental commission in April 2010. Appleyard chairs the energy commission. At the time, Bona was chair of the planning commission. (Chronicle file photo)

“This is incredibly helpful,” says Brix, “because most people don’t have the money for solar initiatives. It’s been passed in the House and is waiting to be reviewed in the Senate.” If legislation is approved, Brix says the city is “poised and ready” to run a PACE program.

The issue of PACE legislation came up during an April 13, 2010 joint working session of the Ann Arbor planning commission, energy commission and environmental commission, focused on the topic of sustainability and organized in part by Bona, who served as planning commission chair at the time. Matt Naud, the city’s environmental coordinator, explained some of the issues related to implementing a PACE program. From Chronicle coverage:

The program would be voluntary. Homeowners would first get an energy audit to find out if they’ve already taken initial steps on their own – for example, Naud said, you wouldn’t want to install solar power if you haven’t sufficiently caulked around your windows. You’d sign a contract with the city, which Naud said would microfinance the improvements. To repay the loan, homeowners would get an additional assessment on their property tax bills.

The risk is low, Naud said, as long as they structure the program in the right way – for example, not lending to people who are upside down on their mortgages, owing more than the home is worth. There’s already a system in place to make payments – the tax bills – and the improvements would add value to the property. The city has set aside $400,000 from a federal Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant it received, to use as a loan loss reserve fund. If the enabling legislation is passed, the city would be able to put together a package that would work, Naud said.

[Link to a September 2009 article about the PACE program, written by Eric Jamison, a law student at Wayne State University Law School who's working with the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center to develop the program in Michigan. More information is also available on the PACE Now website. Previous Chronicle coverage related to PACE: "Special District Might Fund Energy Program"]

Local banks will likely be involved in the effort as well – the Bank of Ann Arbor, for example, has been talking with the city for several months about how a “green lending” program might be structured.

Appleyard says that the DTE program certainly changed the economics of solar installation, but he hopes a feed-in tariff law will be enacted, too. He contends that it’s a case of politicians saying they want to do it and then having the political will to back it up. “It’s just a question of how long we wait and how many more droughts we have and sea level rises and all those other things that are happening – climate change – before we go ahead and decide that we have to do something.”

Hayley Byrnes is an intern with The Ann Arbor Chronicle. Chronicle Publisher Mary Morgan contributed to this report.

Tom Kinnear talks with University of Michigan regent Julia Darlow. Regent Denise Ilitch is seated to the left. Kinnear is head of UM's Zell Lurie Institute for Entrepreneurial Studies, and spoke to regents about programs for student entrepreneurship. (Photo by the writer.)

Regents also approved the naming of the Von Voigtlander Women’s Hospital, reflecting a $15 million gift to the institution – part of the massive $754 million C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital and Women’s Hospital complex being built and expected to open in 2012.

The board signed off on several facilities projects, including interior work on offices at the former Pfizer site, now called the North Campus Research Complex (NCRC), as well as the next step in renovations of the Couzens Hall dormitory.

Also approved was a letter making UM’s annual operating request to the state, which laid out why legislators should appropriate funds to support the university in fiscal 2011. The letter, under the signature of UM president Mary Sue Coleman, did not request a specific dollar amount.

Coleman kicked off the meeting, as she typically does, with some opening remarks that led to news about plans to hold the April 2010 regents meeting in an unusual location: Grand Rapids.

Coleman: Kudos and Collaborations

In her introductory statement, UM president Mary Sue Coleman said it was a time of celebration for the 1,400 students graduating during winter commencement. Also worth celebrating, she said, was a licensing deal announced Dec. 16 between the pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline and NanoBio – an Ann Arbor firm founded by UM professor Jim Baker, who serves as its CEO. Research that led to the treatment for cold sores was developed at UM and is licensed to NanoBio, Coleman said, and demonstrates the value of university research.

Baker was also among 10 UM scientists who were recently elected as Fellows to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Coleman said. He and others reflect the university’s rich heritage of innovators and entrepreneurs, she added, using that as a segue to highlight the work of UM’s Zell-Lurie Institute for Entrepreneurial Studies and MPowered Entrepreneurship, a campuswide student group. Representatives from both groups gave a presentation later in the meeting.

Coleman also expressed gratitude for the $15 million gift from the Ted and Jane Von Voigtlander Foundation for the women’s hospital, and to former UM football player Charles Woodson, who gave $2 million to the children’s hospital for pediatric research. The lobby of the hospital will be named in his honor when it opens in 2012, she said.

Finally, Coleman noted that she gave the commencement address at Grand Valley State University on Dec. 12, and that UM plans to work with that Grand Rapids-based institution on wind technology research. It’s an example of ways that UM is looking to collaborate with partners across the state, she said.

Regent and board chair Andy Richner then noted that because of the university’s growing partnerships in western Michigan, the regents would hold their April 2010 meeting in Grand Rapids. “We look forward to visiting the west side,” he said. A specific location for the meeting was not given.

Graduate Student Enrollment: Policy Change

Janet Weiss – dean of the Rackham Graduate School and vice provost for academic affairs-graduate studies – gave regents an update on a policy change affecting students enrolled in Ph.D. programs. The “continuous enrollment policy” requires that students enroll each semester until they complete their degree, unless they receive approval for a leave of absence.

Weiss told regents that the proposal is part of a strategy to help students complete their degrees with support from the university. Currently, about two-thirds of students in UM’s Ph.D. programs ultimately get their degrees. That’s better than the national average, Weiss said, “but we should be way better than the national average.”

The policy will help administrators better plan support services for the students, Weiss said, and make it easier for faculty to help students complete the program. “We don’t want students to fall between the cracks or to be left out of the loop,” she said.

The proposal has been controversial – at the April regents meeting, graduate students turned out to protest the change. Students charged that it was really a way to push them through the program, and they objected to the additional tuition that they felt they’d have to pay.

No one spoke during public comment at the Dec. 17 meeting, but Weiss told regents she knew they’d heard from students in April, and that she and all the other deans had been working to ensure that students wouldn’t bear additional tuition costs because of the new policy. The university could commit to tuition support for students who are making satisfactory progress toward their degree, she said.

The policy also allows for students to request authorized leaves of absence for health or family reasons. One of the concerns voiced by students in April was the fact that some students took time off to have children, for example, and they didn’t think the new policy would allow for that. Weiss told regents that the policy allowed for flexibility, and that a dispute resolution process would be set up so that students would have recourse for their concerns.

Returning to the issue of tuition, Weiss said that regents would be asked to approve a tuition reduction for Ph.D. candidates in June of 2010, when all tuition rates are set. To keep tuition costs flat, the plan is to lower the tuition rate but spread the cost over additional semesters. She described it as an important component of the overall policy, which she hopes to implement for the fall 2010 semester.

Responding to a question from regent Libby Maynard, Weiss described several others ways that students would be supported, including a faculty mentoring program and help to develop dissertation writing skills. Regent Denise Ilitch asked about the tone of the policy with respect to leaves of absence – would it be stringent and bureaucratic? Weiss pointed to drafts of the policy available online, and said there were four categories available: medical, family, military and personal. Students request permission from their graduate program adviser, who either recommends approval or not. The process is designed to be simple and quick, Weiss said, with recourse through the dispute resolution board.

Regent Julia Darlow asked if there were limits on the number of times a student could request a leave of absence. Weiss said only the personal leave category had a limit – students could use that one time.

With respect to tuition coverage, provost Teresa Sullivan said that her budget team had looked carefully at the numbers, and felt confident that it was financially viable.

Entrepreneurship at UM

To highlight the university’s entrepreneurial activities, two speakers gave presentations to the regents, starting with Tom Kinnear, executive director of the 10-year-old Zell-Lurie Institute for Entrepreneurial Studies at the Ross School of Business.

Kinnear began by saying he was “joined at the hip” with the other speaker, Thomas Zurbuchen, associate dean for entrepreneurial programs at the College of Engineering. Their approach, he said, was to “get people’s hands dirty” – meaning that they encouraged students to actually do the work of entrepreneurs. A large part of it is attitude, he said, including a willingness to take risks.

He cited several examples of that approach, most notably the Wolverine Venture Fund. With guidance from faculty and an advisory board, MBA students have made venture capital investments in over 18 companies since the $3.5 million fund was formed 11 years ago. One of those companies is NanoBio, Kinnear noted. “We were there before any of the big venture funds came in,” he said.

Most recently, the fund saw its biggest return – $2 million, from an investment in Ann Arbor-based HandyLab totaling $350,000 between 2000 and 2005. HandyLab, a UM spinoff, was acquired by New Jersey-based Becton, Dickinson and Company for an undisclosed amount in a deal announced in October 2009.

Kinnear also described the Zell-Lurie Institute’s role in the broader Michigan entrepreneurial community, as host of the long-running Michigan Growth Capital Symposium and the annual Entrepalooza, and the institute’s involvement with the Great Lakes Entrepreneur’s Quest, among other activities.

In handing off to Zurbuchen, Kinnear said the Zell-Lurie Insitute doesn’t work in isolation, and that a lot of collaboration happens with UM’s College of Engineering. He also noted that despite Michigan’s economy, “the world I live in, through this, is positive, growing, prosperous.”

Zurbuchen said he shared Kinnear’s optimism, and that entrepreneurial thinking spills out of the business school and across all the campus. It’s a supportive environment that wasn’t as strong 10 years ago, he maintained. [The full text of Zurbuchen's remarks are posted on his director's blog.]

Zurbuchen cited the MPowered 1,000 Pitches program as a way that the entire campus community was engaged in entrepreneurial thinking. This was the program’s second year, and 2,165 ideas for business ventures were submitted by students across campus.

Several challenges remain in order to make entrepreneurial thinking a core part of the engineering curriculum and of the entire campus, Zurbuchen concluded. The transformation requires help from all corners – he said he hoped that regents would do everything in their power to make it a success.

Several regents had comments and questions following the presentation. Regent Kathy White said she’d seen Zurbuchen and some of his students featured on a recent PBS Newshour report, and that it was exciting to see him helping get the word out about the entrepreneurial activity here. She invited him to tell the regents what they could do to help.

Libby Maynard said it was important to integrate that attitude into all of the curriculum, not just business and engineering. Andy Richner asked what could be done to keep more UM graduates – those who had this entrepreneurial mindset – from leaving the state.

Zurbuchen said that placing students in internships with local companies was an effective way to make connections with the local business community. Those internships can turn into jobs, he said.

Kinnear added that supporting Michigan’s economy was one reason why the Zell-Lurie Institute is involved in so many statewide initiatives and organizations, like the Michigan Venture Capital Association. [Kinnear is vice chairman of that Ann Arbor-based group.] He said the five biggest venture funds in the state – Ardesta, EDF Ventures, Arboretum Ventures, Dow Venture Capital and the Wolverine Venture Fund – are all controlled by UM graduates. He said the university can’t thrive without the infrastructure around it, and that they’re a long way from declaring success on that front. “We’re pushing the boulder up the hill a little,” he said.

Environmental Sustainability

Terry Alexander, executive director of the university’s office of campus sustainability, briefed regents on the new environmental sustainability initiative. His role is to coordinate operational aspects of the effort, working with UM’s Graham Environmental Sustainability Institute, which focuses on academics. The goal, he said, is to turn the campus into a living-learning lab for improving the environment.

Alexander reviewed key points of the initiative: 1) the 2009 Environmental Report, 2) renewable energy, 3) alternative transportation, 4) green purchasing and recycling, 5) new construction and renovation projects, and 6) the Planet Blue program.

Environmental Report: Noting that the full 2009 report was online, Alexander hit on a few highlights. Per capita water use was down 7.1% in 2009, compared to 2004. Energy use had remained flat, despite an additional 11% increase in gross square footage on campus during that period, and a 9% increase in the campus population compared to 2004. Normalized for those factors, he said, energy use was down 19% (measured by British thermal units, or BTUs). Greenhouse gas emissions were also flat, at around 600,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. While it was good that energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions hadn’t increased, he said, “holding steady is not going to be adequate going into the future.” [.PDF file of 2009 Environmental Report]

Renewable Energy: This was an area that hadn’t made great strides, Alexander said. He pointed to the Dana Building’s photovoltaic array project, and the central power plant’s hot water solar array as two examples of efforts toward generating renewable energy on campus.

Alternative Transportation: Use of alternative transportation was up 28% compared to 2004, Alexander said. Ridership on the UM bus system surpassed 6 million during 2009, while the MRide program – which allows UM-affiliated riders to use the AATA system at no cost to them – had over 2.4 million riders. More than 3,000 people have signed up to use the GreenRide program, Alexander said, a system to help people find others interested in using carpools or vanpools. There are 86 UM vanpools, he reported, used by 527 people.

Green Purchasing/Recycling: The university’s recycling rate is at 33%, Alexander said, up from 29% in 2004. A toner cartridge recycling program is just starting, he said, with the expectation of saving about $2 million over the next year. One of their biggest recycling programs is during student move-out dates, when university staff helps divert items – things that would otherwise be left behind and thrown out – to local nonprofits. Over the life of that program, they’ve diverted an estimated 138 tons of usable items, he said.

New Construction/Renovation: This year, the university adopted a new goal for its design standards, aiming to go 30% beyond the 2007 energy efficiency standards set by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). Alexander cited the example of the North Quad dormitory being built at the corner of Huron and State – by using energy efficient design, the university hopes to save $300,000 in annual utility costs.

Planet Blue: The Planet Blue initiative is a building-by-building approach, Alexander said, with operations staff working with each building’s occupants to find ways to reduce energy. Five buildings – including the Fleming administration building, Chemistry and Rackham – have completed the program, showing a 6% reduction in energy use and an annualized cost avoidance of $340,000. Thirty more buildings are involved in Planet Blue this year, and another 30 will be targeted in 2010. Alexander said he thinks the 6% energy reduction will grow to 15-20% when these other buildings complete the program.

Alexander told regents that compared to other schools in the Big 10, UM was a leader in sustainability efforts. Looking ahead, he said, the key will be to balance environmental and economic goals.

Gift for Women’s Hospital

Regents unanimously approved the naming of the new women’s hospital as the University of Michigan Von Voigtlander Women’s Hospital – reflecting a $15 million gift to the hospital from the Ted and Jane Von Voigtlander Foundation. Ted Von Voigtlander was a co-founder of the Discount Tire chain.

Ora Hirsch Pescovitz, UM’s executive vice president for medical affairs, thanked the staff who’d been instrumental in securing the gift, including Pat Warner, Jennifer Edwards, Tamara Carr and Tim Johnson. They were attending the meeting and received a round of applause from the regents. Pescovitz also thanked Gwen Haggerty, president of the foundation, daughter of the Jane Von Voigtlander and adopted daughter of Ted Von Voigtlander. Both of the Von Voigtlanders are deceased.

Regent Andrea Fischer Newman, who participated in the meeting by phone, made the motion to approve this resolution. She noted that it was almost 14 years ago that she spent a few days under the care of Johnson, “and I have a 13-year-old to prove it,” she quipped. Johnson is currently chair of obstetrics and gynecology at the UM Medical School. Newman said she remembered talking to him about his goals for women’s health programs at the university hospital, and that she knew how much this gift would mean toward achieving those goals.

A $754 million C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital and Women’s Hospital complex is being built on the university’s medical campus, and is scheduled to open in 2012.

Building Projects

Regents approved several facilities projects for the Ann Arbor campus:

• A $1.8 million remodel of about 92,000 square feet of office space in four buildings at the North Campus Research Complex (NCRC), formerly the Pfizer campus. The job includes painting and new carpet installation, as well as improving the site’s accessibility. When renovations are finished, the university plans to move administrative staff into the NCRC offices, vacating other space that it currently leases.
• The next step in the $49 million renovation of the Couzens Hall dormitory on East Ann Street, which houses about 560 students – authorizing the project to be put out for bids, and authorizing the awarding of construction contracts. At their July 2009 meeting, regents approved the schematic design for the dorm renovation, which UM chief financial officer Tim Slottow previously characterized as the last “deep” renovation of a heritage residence hall.
• An $11.1 million renovation and expansion project on the second floor of the Michigan Memorial Phoenix Laboratory building, which houses the Michigan Memorial Phoenix Energy Institute. The architectural firm of Lord, Aeck & Sargent Inc. will design the project. It includes renovating 10,000 square feet of research space and building another 10,000 square feet for administrative use.

Lease Report

The university’s real estate policy requires that an annual report be given to the regents with information about leases exceeding 50,000 square feet at any given location. The current report lists five such places – no dollar amounts were given regarding the cost of these leases.

• 229,550 square feet at the Domino’s Farms complex, leased from Domino’s Farms for use by various University of Michigan Health System (UMHS) departments, including sports medicine, plastic surgery, preventive cardiology, and various Medical School groups, including internal medicine.
• 125,815 square feet at the KMS Building on 3621 S. State St., leased from Kosmos Associates for hospital clinical billing and other UMHS groups.
• 63,920 square feet at 2301 Commonwealth Blvd., leased from First Properties Associates for use by various UMHS groups.
• 59,219 square feet at 325 E. Eisenhower Parkway, leased from Burlington Property LLC for use by physical medicine and rehabilitation, spine rehabilitation, and the Dental School.
• 51,534 square feet at 1051 N. Canton Center Road in Canton, leased from Saltz Center for the UMHS Canton Health Center.

Conflict of Interest Items

Regents approved 10 items that required disclosure under the state’s Conflict of Interest statute. They involved deals with the following nine companies: McCreadie Group Inc., Fusion Cooolant Systems Inc., ChemXLerate LLC, NanoBio Corp., NeuroNexus Technologies Inc., Incept BioSystems, ACSI LLC, Arbor Photonics Inc. and 3D Biomatrix Inc.

Regent Larry Deitch, an attorney, recused himself without elaboration from voting on a master sub-recipient agreement between the university and NanoBio Corp. – the company led by Jim Baker that was cited in UM president Mary Sue Coleman’s opening remarks.

Annual Operating Request to the State

Regents approved but did not discuss annual operating requests made to the state legislature for the Ann Arbor, Flint and Dearborn campuses for fiscal 2011, which begins July 1, 2010. [.PDF file of request made for the Ann Arbor campus]

The requests came in the form of a letter from UM president Mary Sue Coleman to state budget director Robert Emerson. No specific dollar amount was mentioned. Rather, the letter made a case for why it was important for the state to maintain adequate funding for the university. The letter states, in part:

We acknowledge the financial circumstances of the State. Nevertheless, the University of Michigan is an essential component in the stabilization and revitalization of the Michigan economy. We also play a critical role in the development and education of our workforce and cannot risk jeopardizing the quality of our instruction, research and service. Our current state appropriation is $47 million less, in nominal dollars, than the appropriation we received in fiscal 2002. At the same time, our activity levels have grown, and the competition we face for the best students and faculty has increased.

Maintaining our position as one of the most prestigious educational and research institutions in the world is one of our top goals, and it is critical to our ability to continue supporting the State’s economic recovery. The impact of the State’s historic contributions to the University of Michigan’s success cannot by overstated, and we believe the State’s continued investment in our success is central to our collective future.

UM’s Ann Arbor campus received a state appropriation of $316.6 million for its current fiscal year, plus $8.78 million in one-time funding.

Present: Mary Sue Coleman (ex officio), Julia Darlow, Larry Deitch, Denise Ilitch, Olivia Maynard, Andrea Fischer Newman (via phone), Andy Richner, Martin Taylor, Kathy White

Next board meeting: Thursday, Jan. 21 at 3 p.m. in the Fleming Administration Building, 503 Thompson St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

To ramp up for this influx of federal funding, the program will be hiring staff for the duration of the grant, which runs from April 1, 2009 through Sept. 30, 2010. Aaron Kraft, program coordinator, said there are two full-time employees now (including him), plus a private contractor who does inspections. Kraft expects they’ll need seven full-time staff in the office to handle outreach and applications, four more inspectors and double the number of general contractors that they use to work on these projects.

In addition to the increased number of houses they’ll be able to serve, the amount that can be spent per house has roughly doubled, Kraft said. Not including administrative costs, about $4,500 will be available for each home. The program covers houses, mobile homes, townhomes and condominiums, but not usually apartments in large complexes, Kraft said.

Those funds pay for an energy audit/home inspection, which reveals ways in which a home’s energy efficiency can be improved. That includes a “blower door” test to depressurize the house – basically, taking a powerful fan and sucking out the air to exaggerate the effects of air leakage through cracks around doors and windows. They’ll also do a meter reading on the refrigerator – if it’s an energy hog, the program might pay to replace it with a more efficient model.

For many homes, Kraft said, installing insulation in the attic, walls and foundation “gets the most bang for your buck.” They replace all light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs, but they don’t often replace windows – that’s often beyond the program’s budget, and it’s not where you’ll see the most energy savings, he said, calling that a myth generated by Wallside Windows.

The inspection also looks at general health and safety issues, like whether there are adequate smoke detectors. They’ll also check to make sure there’s no carbon monoxide emissions from a faulty furnace or hot water heater.

Federal guidelines, based on poverty levels, have changed for income eligibility, Kraft said, so more people qualify for the weatherization program. You automatically qualify for assistance if you’re receiving Michigan bridge cards (formerly known as food stamps), or if you receive supplemental security income (SSI). Priority is given to the disabled, elderly and families below 125% of the federal poverty level, Kraft said.

Beyond that, you qualify if you fall at or below these annual income levels:

• 1-person household: $21,660
• 2-person household: $29,140
• 3-person household: $36,620
• 4-person household: $44,100
• 5-person household: $51,580
• 6-person household: $59,060
• 7-person household: $66,540
• 8-person household: $74,020
• (For each additional person, add $7,480)

Income is calculated going back the previous 90 days, so if someone was making more than these levels but has been laid off recently, they might qualify.

The grant is part of a much larger amount expected for Washtenaw County from federal stimulus bills passed in 2008 and earlier this year. Other federal funding, such as $3 million for the purchase and rehab of foreclosed property, was discussed at the March 4 Board of Commissioners meeting, where some county staff members mentioned the weatherization funds and pointed The Chronicle to Kraft.

Much of the federal funding hasn’t been allocated with specific dollar amounts, so in that way the weatherization program is ahead of the game. The funds flow from the U.S. Department of Energy, and are administered locally via the county’s Employment Training and Community Services (ETCS) department out of its Harriet Street office in Ypsilanti.

Handling such a dramatic increase will be challenging, Kraft said. In the past, they’ve relied on word of mouth and local nonprofits or community organizations to make referrals. Or people might be made aware of the program when they call the county’s 2-1-1 information line. They’ll probably change their approach to outreach, he said, in order to get more people enrolled.

So what if the program doesn’t spend all the funds?

“Oh … not an option,” Kraft said.

If you think you qualify or would like more information, call the weatherization program 734.544.2948.

415 W. Washington Background

To review proposals for redevelopment of the property, in May 2008 city council appointed an advisory committee consisting of Christine Brummer (Old West Side Association), Chris Easthope (then city council member), Sue McCormick (director of public services with the city of Ann Arbor), John Mouat (Downtown Development Authority board member), and Scott Rosencrans (city Park Advisory Commission).

The three proposals, in severely abbreviated form were as follows:

Old West Side Design Group: This proposal calls for construction of a 3-story artist loft and live/work building totaling 24-36 units with above grade-level parking. The building, which would contain a minimum of 5-8 affordable units, would be located south of the main building on land currently occupied by garage structures. It would be designed for a LEED Silver rating or higher. A 24-unit residential condominium and commercial building is proposed on the adjacent 318 W. Liberty, to be developed under a separate site plan by members of the OWSDG proposal team.

Morningside: Construction of a new five-story, 52-unit condominium building with 48 parking spaces on the grade level under the building. Second floor residences are proposed for artist live/work space. Units would be priced in the mid-$200,000 range. The building, which would be designed for LEED Gold certification, would be located south of the main building on land currently occupied by garage structures.

Ann Arbor Art Center: Renovation of the 415 W. Washington building and garages into a community arts facility, to be owned by the Art Center. The Art Center would occupy approximately 13,000 square feet and rent or lease the remaining space to art groups and individuals.

After meeting seven times from May to December 2008 to review and evaluate the proposals, the committee offered praise for all three proposals but has declined to designate any one of the three a recommended choice. From the committee report:

Notwithstanding these positive elements, the Committee finds that no single proposal is able to satisfy all of the site objectives and requirements of the RFP on its own merits. This evaluation is described in the findings below, followed by recommendations for the next steps in the site redevelopment process.

The committee has thus punted the process back to council by asking council to refine the RFP and allow opportunity until mid-March 2009 for revision to the proposals:

City council should further clarify its vision for the intended uses of the site and revise the site objectives in the RFP accordingly. The Committee recommends that city council include the following elements in its vision for the site:

• A publicly-owned greenway along the existing floodway
• Renovation of the 415 W. Washington office building for an arts and/or civic use.
• Removal of the garages behind the office building.
• Construction of a new multi-family or live-work residential building at the southwest corner of the site
• Pedestrian and vehicle connections to both Liberty and Washington streets

City council should provide each of the three proposers an opportunity to amend their proposal to respond to the revised site objectives and to provide for collaboration between the parties. The charge of the advisory committee should be extended to review the amended proposals and make its recommendation to city council by March 16, 2009.

415 W. Washington Caucus Discussion

Peter Allen, who is part of the Old West Side Design Group, led off caucus public participation by saying that he thought the committee’s recommendation that city council amend the RFP was a great idea. He was also there to fill a gap in the council’s information packet – the economics of how the Old West Side Design Group’s proposal would work. He also emphasized what he saw as the positive aspects of his team’s proposal.

Peter Allen summarizes some elements of the Old West Side Design Group.

They included the possibility of “launching” the greenway at that location, and taking advantage of the location as a possible transit station in the event the railroad right-of-way could be secured into Ann Arbor from Barton Drive (where the north-south commuter rail project WALLY would stop unless that Ann Arbor right-of-way could be secured). Allen also emphasized that his proposal included a “social street” – a predominantly pedestrian street, but that would allow cars to connect between Liberty and Washington streets.

Allen stressed that another unique aspect of his group’s proposal was the possibility of integrating the development of the adjacent carwash site at 318 W. Liberty as mixed-use residential. Redevelopment of the carwash site, said Allen, would generate a $1.2 million TIF, which could be used to develop the greenway. One of the renderings for the carwash site presented by Allen at caucus had been observed previously “in the wild” by The Chronicle.

At the conclusion of caucus Peter Pollack, member of the design team for the Ann Arbor Art Center’s proposal, thanked council for the opportunity to refine the proposals. He also sought to clarify that while the proposal was an Art Center facility, it was conceived as a cultural center with the Art Center as one component.

At the mention of the notion of a “cultural center,” a member of the public, who had appeared to speak to the issue of the PUD rezoning for City Place, took the occasion to address a cultural gap in Ann Arbor that he hoped might be incorporated into a 415 W. Washington redevelopment: a community theater. He characterized it as a “disgrace” that Ann Arbor lacked such a facility. Asked by the mayor of Ann Arbor, John Hieftje, if the facilities at the high schools or various churches might serve the purpose, he explained that high school facilities carried with them the association of a less-than-professional quality performance and said few people would come to a performance at such a venue. Church facilities, he said, generally lacked a pit for an orchestra or fly space necessary to mount a serious production. In a facility used on loan from another organization, he added, it was generally not possible to leave sets in place between rehearsals, which meant packing everything away after each rehearsal.

Hieftje inquired of Pollack if he saw a possibility of combining the three different proposals. Pollack allowed that it had been talked about, but that the vision his group had pursued was to look at the architecture that is there and to ask: what’s the best and highest use of that space? Hieftje asked what the expected hours of activity for art center classes and studio time might be – a question driven by concern for the lack of residential units that could provide “eyes on the park” for the greenway portion of the redevelopment. Pollack said it would be “normal business hours” and could extend to 9-10 p.m., but noted that past that time, residents start going to bed, so residential units would not guarantee the “eyes on the park” benefit, either.

Councilmember Mike Anglin thanked Pollack for his work “from day one” (an allusion to his work on the greenway taskforce) and said that he would like to see dialog between the groups making the proposals, instead of council simply making a decision.

City Place Background

The proposal, brought by developer Alex de Parry to council after a recommendation against approval by planning commission, is for a 123,168-square-foot residential building to replace seven existing houses along Fifth Avenue, south of William Street. Dimensions are 327.24 feet long, 48 feet tall, and 96.5 feet deep. The length dimension is frequently described in public discussion, and in the city’s staff report as well, as longer than a football field.

The building would contain 90 units with 164 total bedrooms.

What about the project makes it necessary to apply for a Planned Unit Development, or PUD, a more flexible type of zoning? Highlights include the fact that current R4C (multi-family dwelling) zoning would require a front setback of almost 62 feet, whereas the proposal is for a 19.5-foot setback. Rear setbacks for R4C would be almost 67 feet, whereas the proposal is for a 31.6-foot rear setback. Height limits for R4C are 30 feet, whereas the proposal calls for a 48-foot tall building.

City Place schematic. (image links to higher resolution file) This is a view oriented looking east. Fifth Avenue is at the bottom of the schematic. On the left edge is William Street.

City Place view from Fifth Avenue. Although it appears to be three separate buildings in this drawing, the building continues through the apparent gaps.

The project would require demolition or removal of seven houses along Fifth Avenue currently owned by de Parry. De Parry has offered to sell any of the houses for $1, to be moved to an alternate location, but to date no one has taken him up on that. Some spitballing has taken place about possible locations suitable to receive one of the houses (on Swift Street), but nothing concrete has emerged as a proposal, and the idea of moving the houses from their original locations has gained little traction as an alternative among those opposed to the project.

The seven houses, with their descriptions from the city staff report are as follows:

407 S. Fifth Ave. – c. 1899. This Dutch Gambrel style house was built around 1899. The first occupant listed in the Polk Directory was Ms. Richmond Bannister (widow of William) in 1902. (From the staff report on the PUD proposal.)

411 S. Fifth Ave.: Andrew Reule House – c. 1901. This house is a fine example of the Queen Anne style and features cross-gabled roofs and varying sized windows, including unusual oval and Diocletian shapes. Mr. Reule, a downtown clothier, occupied this house from 1902 until at least 1940. (From the staff report on the PUD proposal.)

415 S. Fifth Ave.: Clayton Gaskell (Beakes) House – c. 1838. This Greek Revival style house is believed to be one of the oldest surviving houses in the city. Though it has been altered over the years, particularly the interior, it remains architecturally significant. It features a pedimented gable-front orientation, lunette in the attic, well-defined cornice, corner pilasters, and classical side entry. The house was the home of two important Ann Arbor mayors: Hiram Beakes, from 1860 until the late 1880s; and a short time later Samuel Beakes (no relation), for whom Beakes Street is named. (From the staff report on the PUD proposal.)

419 S. Fifth Ave.: Henry and Mary Mann House – 1902. This late Queen Anne style house is symmetrical in form, with fancy shingle and fan patterned siding in the gables and brackets and upper spindles on the front porch. The house also features returns in the front gable and a full pediment and plain round Doric posts on the porch. (From the staff report on the PUD proposal.)

427 S. Fifth Ave.: Francis M. Hamilton House – c. 1894. This house first appears in Polk Directories in 1893 or 1894. Francis Hamilton moved in in 1896, and Hamilton descendents lived there until 1938. Mr. Hamilton was a mayor of Ann Arbor, and the developer of Hamilton Place, in his Fifth Avenue backyard. The house is a restrained and symmetrical Queen Anne, with cross-gables, a cutaway corner and an open front porch. (From the staff report on the PUD proposal.)

433 S. Fifth Ave. – c. 1850s (?). This very old and very charming housewith its low pitched roof and symmetrical eaves appears on the 1880 Panorama View of the City of Ann Arbor, and could date back to the 1850s. Herbert Slauson lived here for many years after the turn of the 20th century. He was superintendent of Ann Arbor Public Schools, and the namesake of Slauson Middle School. (From the staff report on the PUD proposal.)

437 S. Fifth Ave.: John McCarthy House – 1866. This house is an example of the simplest and most typical form of the Italianate style. It features a plain three-bay facade with the entrance at the right. The door is flanked by pilasters and a modified entablature. (From the staff report on the PUD proposal.)

City Place Caucus Discussion

The comments from the public at caucus reflected many of the same sentiments from the planning commission’s public hearing. Not all of the members of the public took a turn at the podium on Sunday night, possibly due to mayor of Ann Arbor John Hieftje’s discouragement of speakers from speaking both at caucus and at Monday’s council meeting. That admonition came at the start of caucus and again at the conclusion of one of the speaker’s podium turns: “Just to remind people, we’re hoping not to see you tomorrow at the public hearing.” This earned a sharp response from Ray Detter, of the Downtown Area Citizens Advisory Council, who said, “John, as you know and as I know, both, all of these people will be here again tomorrow. And they should be here tomorrow.” Hieftje said that caucus used to go on for four hours or more and that this had led them to discourage “double-dipping.”

For the following report of public comments, we categorize sentiments loosely based on topic.

PUD Language

One resident, who’s scheduled in May to move into a recently-purchased home on Fifth Avenue, quoted the italicized portion of the state enabling legislation, and concluded that City Place foundered on the requirement of integration:

MZEA:
125.3503 Planned unit development.
Sec. 503. (1) As used in this section, “planned unit development” includes such terms as cluster zoning, planned development, community unit plan, and planned residential development and other terminology denoting zoning requirements designed to accomplish the objectives of the zoning ordinance through a land development project review process based on the application of site planning criteria to achieve integration of the proposed land development project with the characteristics of the project area.

The same resident cited Ann Arbor’s city code, emphasizing the italicized portion:

5:10.27. PUD planned unit development district. (1) Intent. The purpose of this district is to permit flexibility in the regulation of land development; to encourage innovation in land use and variety in design, layout and type of structures constructed; to achieve economy and efficiency in the use of land, natural resources, energy and the provision of public services and utilities; to encourage provision of usable open space and protection of natural features; to provide adequate housing, employment and shopping opportunities particularly suited to the needs of the residents of the city; to expand the supply of affordable housing for lower income households and to encourage the use, reuse and improvement of existing sites and buildings which will be developed in a compatible way with surrounding uses but where the uniform regulations contained in other zoning districts do not provide adequate protections and safeguards for the site or surrounding area. The district is intended to accommodate developments with one or more land uses, sites with unusual topography or unique settings within the community or sites which exhibit difficult or costly development problems or any combination of these factors. This zoning district shall not be allowed where this zoning classification is sought primarily to avoid the imposition of standards and requirements of other zoning classifications or other city regulations rather than to achieve the stated purposes above.

Most of the commentary addressed the merits of the various public benefits mentioned in the city code.

Affordable Housing

The proposed development would offer 38 units reserved for those with incomes at 90% or below of the area median income, and 14 additional units reserved for those with incomes at 80% or below of the area median income. According to the staff report, the 80% AMI figures are $76,900 and $96,250 for two-person and four-person families, respectively. The 90% AMI figures are $49,200 and $61,500 for two-person and four-person families, respectively.

Several speakers at caucus were critical of the project as eliminating the truly affordable housing that existed in the form of the seven houses to be replaced. One speaker stated that the rents to be charged at the lowest level for the new project would exceed existing rents by 50%.

Density: Where?

The Central Area Plan was cited as specifying increased density in the downtown, but not in the adjacent neighborhoods. One resident, who had walked from his Fifth Avenue neighborhood home to caucus, related how he was initially supportive of the project, but only in a lukewarm way. What convinced him that it was not something he could support, he said, was the fact that an alternative to building densely could be had only 40 paces away at the site of the old YMCA. There, he said, he didn’t care if they built a 20-story apartment building – a remark that prompted Hieftje to say, “We’re going to remember you said that.”

Related to density is one of the benefits cited by the developer: efficiency in the use of energy resources.

Energy Efficiency

Responding to the developer’s cited benefit of increased energy efficiency, many of the speakers made the point that older homes can be retrofitted to be more energy efficient. Further, they made the point that into the calculation must be thrown the embodied energy used to construct the original houses. One resident noted that he’d made investments in his home in the area of increased insulation, but hesitated to think about adding a geo-thermal system, when the future of the neighborhood seemed threatened. Another resident noted that back when these homes were built, the materials were already recycled, citing the example of the beams in his basement home, which he said seemed to have been scavenged from a barn.

De Parry said that he’d made efforts to insulate the properties, but that when his energy bill approached his tax bill, he knew something was wrong. Scott Munzel, attorney for de Parry on the project, offered an analysis of the increased energy efficiency that put the total carbon investment per person housed in the proposed project at one-third the amount currently used. He suggested that in terms of embodied energy, the relevant notion to apply was how long the payback on the investment took. He noted that he was a land-use attorney, not an energy expert, but gave citations to sources that had estimates in the range of 10 years or less. Munzel also stressed the carbon savings from the reduction in transportation energy used – the development is expected to attract residents with jobs near the downtown.

When Munzel concluded his remarks, one resident flitted to the podium to offer her observation that Munzel had just suggested that everyone tear down their homes and replace them with more energy-efficient structures.

Who Wants to Live There?

The developer describes the project as appealing to young professionals. In response to this, many speakers questioned whether they would prefer to live in a “clunky apartment building” or a house. One 31-year-old young professional said that he’d vastly prefer to live in a house than an apartment building.

Character and Aesthetics

Several speakers spoke to the scale and mass of the proposed building as inconsistent with the overall character of the neighborhood. One speaker noted that businesses have an interest in keeping Ann Arbor an attractive place to visit that is different from outlying Detroit suburbs. It is important, she said, to preserve Ann Arbor’s unique ambiance, and City Place did not do that, because it had no distinctive character.

Present: Mike Anglin, Carsten Hohnke, Christopher Taylor, Tony Derezinski, Sabra Briere, John Hieftje.

Next Caucus Meeting: Sunday, Jan. 18, 2009 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave.
[confirm date]